9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an, AC (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The facts of the case are that appellant had filed refund claims of the amount paid against 4% Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) in terms of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., as amended. Original authority rejected the claims for the reason that claimant has submitted photocopies of T.R. 6 challans where the date of payment is not available which is mandatory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed before the Assistant Commissioner and extract from ICEGATE containing the details of customs duty paid with a reference to the Bill of Entry and date was presented before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). (ii) Appellant per se did not submit the TR-6 challan with the date. However, the documents submitted by the Appellant contain the detail of Bill of Entry No. and date which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Chartered Accountant as proof of payment. However, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the Appeal stating the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant is not a relevant document as proof of payment of duty. (v) The certificate of Chartered Accountant is conclusive evidence. It is well settled legal position, that CA certificate cannot be rejected without co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und claim as required under condition No. 2(e)(i) of the notification No. 102/2007-Cus. From the facts on record, as also the contentions of the appellant, it is evident that they have produced photocopy of bank challans evidencing payment of customs duty, extract from ICEGATE duly certified by Chartered Accountant as proof of payment. This being so, just because in the photocopy of T.R. 6 challan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
