9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ha Deve, JC (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER Brief facts are that the appellant filed refund claim of Rs. 45,29,063.43 covering 27 Bills of Entry. The refund sanctioning authority sanctioned refund of 23 Bills of Entry for an amount of Rs. 41,28,172/-. For the remaining 4 Bills of Entry, it was held that there is a mismatch between the descriptions given in the import documents and local sales in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that the appellant had imported various grades and types of plastic materials like LDPE, LLDPE, PVC Resin, PVC Suspension Resin and HDPE. In the sales invoices which are under question as per the 4 Bills of Entry, the description was given as LDPE, whereas the Bills of Entry mentioned the description as LLDPE. This was only a clerical omission while preparing local sale invoices and all other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e - 2019 (370) E.L.T. 947 (Tri. - Bang.) (d) Shanti Enterprises v. CC, New Delhi - 2016 (343) E.L.T. 446 (Tri. - Del.) 3. On behalf of the Revenue, Learned DR, Ms. T. Usha Devi, appeared and argued the matter. She supported the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issue is the rejection of the refund claim alleging that there is mismatch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant has sufficiently proved and fulfilled the requirements as per the Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-11-2007. In the decision relied by the Learned Counsel for the appellant, the Hon'ble High Court has held in favour of the appellant/importer. After perusal of the documents submitted by the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that the rejection of refund claim is without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
