9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... importer by mistake and after realizing the same, they made another remittance of the same amount in their name as pre-deposit which was also accepted and thereafter, they claimed refund of the first pre-deposit and these facts remain undisputed. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order while rejecting, has maintained that the first pre-deposit was made in the name of M/s. Sree Sai Inc. and it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to ascertain who has drawn the DD/BPO, i.e., whether appellant or the importer. The denial of refund is unjust and unsustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/40390/2018 - Final Order No. 42707/2018 - Dated:- 29-10-2018 - Shri P. Dinesha, Member (J) Shri S. Manivannan, Proprietor, for the Appellant. Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR), for the Respon-dent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an, Ld. AC (AR), appeared for the Revenue. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the documents placed on record. 4. It is the case of the assessee that the appellant had remitted as a pre-condition an amount of ₹ 22,500/- while preferring appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 53658/2017, dated 27-2-2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs against the importer namely M/s. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit by observing that pre-deposit amount paid by one cannot be reversed by somebody else... which is without any documentary evidence and it is not even the case of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the first pre-deposit was made by M/s. Sree Sai Inc. against which a refund is claimed by the appellant herein. The Revenue has nowhere denied the fact that both pre-deposits were made by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
