9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TERPRISES INTERNATIONAL LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS) , THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (REFUNDS) [ 2016 (10) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - Besides, the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/S. RONAK OPTIK INDIA ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. [ 2012 (9) TMI 992 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] , have categorically held, that where an assessee is entitled in law to refund of tax paid, it is immaterial whether the payment is in cash or by debit of DEPB, and that the right to refund is not lost by reason of the DEPB scheme. The appellant is entitled to refund of the balance amount of ₹ 43,95,212/- which was paid from the DEPB scrip - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,70,514.00, the Dy. Commissioner sanctioned a refund of ₹ 80,75,202.00, which was paid by the appellant in cash, but withheld the balance amount of ₹ 43,95,212.00 on the ground that the same was paid by the appellant from the DEPB Scrip and hence not refundable. Aggrieved by the above order dt.30.03.2017 of the Dy. Commissioner, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise Customs, Bhubaneswar. Before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) the appellant, in support of its contention that duty paid through the DEPB Scrip is refundable under Sec.27(1) of the Customs Act,1962, relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Allen Diesel India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. UOI = 2016 (334 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), relying upon the CBEC s circular dt.29.04.2013, is liable to be set aside. Further, the learned counsel specifically referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court, in the case of Ronak Optik India Vs. UOI, reported in 2016 (331) ELT-537 (Cal), wherein vide para 10, it was held that an assessee is entitled to refund of tax paid, and it was immaterial that the payment of duty was in cash or by debit of DEPB. The learned counsel for the appellant, summarizing his arguments, filed a written submission at the time of hearing which is taken on records. 5. The Ld. Shri A. K. Singh, A. R. appearing for the respondent reiterated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed ultra vires by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Allen Diesel India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. EOI = 2016 (334) ELT 624 (Del) and the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Enterprises International Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner, Customs (Exports), Chennai = 2016 (342) ELT 57 (Mad). Besides, the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Ronak Optik India vs. UOI reported in 2016 (331) ELT 537 (Cal), have categorically held vide para 10, that where an assessee is entitled in law to refund of tax paid, it is immaterial whether the payment is in cash or by debit of DEPB, and that the right to refund is not lost by reason of the DEPB scheme. 11. In view of the foregoing decisions and by Respectfully following the judgments of the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
