9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue requires no interference. Time limitation - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) has referred to Section 16 Section 51 of the Customs Act to arrive at the conclusion that the relevant date for reckoning the rate of duty to be paid is the date of let export order. Further, it is seen that the enhanced duty was paid by the respondent after issuing letter of protest. Therefore, limitation does not apply even if it is considered as subsequent claim - the refund claim then cannot be said to be time barred. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. C/3193/2011 - A/30483/2019 - Dated:- 23-4-2019 - MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.78/2008-Cus and that they are not liable to pay the differential duty. The department did not allow the vessel for outward entry and then the respondent paid the differential duty of ₹ 2,89,22,625/- on 25.06.2008 after incurring the detention charges for the vessel detention. The vessel was permitted to sail on 26.06.2008. The respondent thereafter realised that the authorities had assessed the export duty on FOB value as against cum-duty value and thus they paid excess duty of ₹ 71,74,423/-. They then filed refund claim for ₹ 71,74,423/- on 16.12.2008. On noting that they are not liable to pay enhanced duty of ₹ 2,89,22,625/-charged @ 15% adv as per notification 78/2008 which has come to effect only on 13.06.2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieved by the order of the refund sanctioning authority dated 13.07.2011, respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who, vide the impugned order herein held that the respondents are eligible for refund. Hence, the department is now before the Tribunal. 4. On behalf of the department, learned authorized representative Shri N. Bhanu Kiran appeared and argued the matter. He reiterated the grounds of appeal. He explained that the respondents had filed the first refund claim for ₹ 71,74,423/- on 16.12.2008 on the ground that they have paid excess duty on FOB value. Later they filed revised refund claim on 13.03.2009 for ₹ 2,89,22,625/- contending that they are not liable to pay the differential duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The details of the refund applications are tabulated as under: Sl. No. Date of filing/ Amount of refund Reasons/ ground of filing of refund 1 16-12-08 / ₹ 71,74,423/- They had paid duty on FOB value, which has to be treated as cum-duty value 2 13-03-09 / ₹ 2,89,22,625/- Since the date of filing of shipping bill and date of let export order is 10.06.2008, they need not pay duty as per Notification No.79/08-Cus, dt.13.06.08. 7. The refund for ₹ 71,74,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
