9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant initially filed claim for duty paid on the goods re-exported under Section 26A of the Act and during the course of pending of said proceedings, on realising that although the claim under Section 26A is not maintainable, they filed refund claim under Section 74 of the Act - filing the refund claim under wrong provisions does not disentitle the legitimate claim of the appellant. Substantive righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The facts of the case are that the appellant filed the bill of entry for importation of 20 types of Dietary Supplements. As the appellant did not produce certificate from FSSAI, therefore, the goods were detained and the appellant was able to produce necessary certificate from FSSAI with regard to 15 items. On request of the appellant, part clearance was allowed. For remaining five items, one item ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act is barred by limitation. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that as the appellant have claimed refund of duty paid on the goods re-exported under Section 26A of the Act and the said proceedings were pending, therefore, the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, be given to the appellant to claim filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim under wrong provisions does not disentitle the legitimate claim of the appellant. Substantive right of the appellant to file their claim under the correct provisions of the Act cannot be denied, therefore, the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is available to the appellant, therefore, by giving the benefit of Section 14 of the Act, I hold that the claim of the drawback filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
