9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fund was not admissible to the respondent - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue. - C/51972/2015-CU[SM] - A/71276/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 23-10-2017 - Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for Appellant Mrs. Stuti Saggi, Advocate as Amicus-curiae, for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.NOI/EXCUS/000/APP/285/2014-15 dated 23/12/2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Service Tax, (Appeals), Meerut-II at Noida. The appeal is filed by Revenue. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed bill of Entry bearing No.6914966 dated 24.05.2012 for 204.030 MT of Hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs Shri Ankur Kumar, Director of M/s DVS Steel Alloys (who sold the goods on high seas) appeared for hearing. They submitted that they had been cheated by the overseas supplier and requested for refund of duty already paid. They also expressed their inability for re-export of the goods which virtually had no commercial value. The respondent vide their letter dated 0808.2012 submitted that order was for import of 204.03MT of HMS, however, on examination only 4 MT of the goods were found as HMS and the balance quantity was found to be slag. They further stated that the goods were supplied at the rate of USD 455/MT CIF and the value of the goods as per invoice of overseas supplier worked out to be ₹ 50,78,336.70/- whereas, the value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner rejected the refund claim. Being aggrieved with the above said Order-in-Original dated 14.08.2012 respondent preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 23.12.2014 observed that the claim of the appellant cannot be rejected treating it as premature simply of the ground that they did not exercise any of the option given by the Commissioner. Accordingly, Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal with consequential relief subject to verification of the documents and compliance of the conditions as laid down under Section 23 and Section 26A of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue is before this Tribunal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o this sub section. In the instant case, it appears that M/s Prateek Traders exercised the option to relinquish their title to the goods vide their letter dated 02.09.2012, i.e. well after the passing of the Order-in-Original dated 14.08.2012. It is further hit by the condition of the proviso of this sub section as an offence of mis-declaration in respect of the imported goods appears to have been committed by the party. The appellate authority had not discussed these facts in the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 4. Heard the learned A.R. who has presented the above stated grounds of appeal and also submitted a copy of report dated 2809.2017 through which copy of the letter dated 02.09.2012 submitted by the respondent relinquishing the title ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
