9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty for fresh decision - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/2/2011, E/338/2010 - Final Order No. 40504-40505/2018 - Dated:- 26-2-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for Revenue Shri V.S.Manoj, Advocate for the Assessee ORDER Per Bench The issue involved in both the appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund claim and the period involved is given as under:- Department Appeal No. E/2/2011 SCN Amount of refund sanctioned Period of dispute LTUC/198 /2009 (AC) (RF) dated 29.6.2009 Rs.1,64,670/- vide Order-in-Original dated 20.8.2009 8/2008 to 9/2008 Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by such rejection, assessee has filed Appeal No. E/338/2010. 4. On behalf of the assessee, ld. counsel Shri V.S. Manoj submitted that the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim of the assessee on the ground that the supplier is well aware that the assessee is a SEZ unit and therefore ought not to have collected duty. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upplier to clear goods to a SEZ Developer / Unit either without payment of duty under bond or to pay and claim as a rebate. It therefore emerges that the procedure prescribed under Rule 30 is applicable to DTA supplier only to clear without payment of duty under bond or claim rebate. In the present case, the rebate is claimed by the assessee which is a SEZ unit even though it is in the nature of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
