9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 Nos. of finished goods (handicraft) lying in stock as on 27.07.2015, appellant deposited duty of Rs. 7,22,290/-. As per the appellant the said goods were subsequently exported and they sought refund of the duty paid Rs. 7,22,290/-, exported thereafter. Thus they applied for refund on 18.07.2016 on the ground that they had deposited duty for issue of NOC on the stock of finished goods as on 27.07.2015. Now, they have exported the entire stock, which is evident from the copy of ARE-I bond. They further enclosed documents like copy of NOC dated 27.07.2015, copy of stock statement as on 27.07.2015, self attested copies of invoice, packing list, copy of shipping bill, bill of lading - proving export of goods lying in stock as on 27.07.2015. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copy of export promotion invoice, copy of bill of lading. Further, the goods were exported soon after debonding and admittedly duty have been paid on such goods at the time of debonding. Admittedly, 153 pieces of handicrafts were lying in stock on 27.07.2015, on the date of debonding. Thereafter, there was further production and there was closing stock of 601 units on 29th July. However, the appellant have exported over 448 units on 30.07.2015 which included the stock of 153 units as on 27.07.2015. Further, the appellant have been exporting their total production, both before the date of debonding and subsequently also. Thus, there is no question of clearance of goods in DTA. Learned Counsel further relies on the ruling of coordinate Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of debonding. Hence, the duty cannot be demanded again. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. 4. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue relies on the impugned order. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that admittedly the appellant have exported 448 units of handicraft on 30.07.2015, within a week after the date of debonding being 27.07.2015 when only 153 units were lying in stock. Thus, the refund claim have been rejected on presumptions and assumptions that such 153 units may not have been included in the exported units as there has been further production of 448 units on 28-29.07.2015. Such presumption is drawn without any adverse finding or any adverse material on recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
