9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cess import and hence, no duty or interest would have been required to be paid . Respondent no.3 in another letter dated 23rd August 2016 also admits that had petitioner submitted the two invoices earlier, the office of DGFT would have processed the same for redemption and there would not have been any liability to pay custom duty plus interest. The only reason why it was rejected was due to non-reversal of redemption in the computer system. The indisputable position is petitioner has fulfilled its export obligations and, therefore, respondent no.3 should have issued the discharge certificate. It is rather strange that a genuine case has been rejected by respondent no.3 only because the computer system in his office would not permit rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... items to be used in the manufacture of the products on a duty free basis in terms of exemption notification issued by the Central Government exempting from payment of customs duty, additional duty, safeguard duty and anti-dumping duty. In order to comply with its export obligations as mentioned in the Advance Authorization, petitioner had made deemed export of plate heat exchangers and mandatory spares totally amounting to Rs.4,25,79,994/- during the period of export obligation mentioned in the Advance Authorization. Petitioner also procured certificate of payment issued by BHEL in Form 1-C evidencing the supply of materials against seven out of nine invoices. It is petitioner s case that due to reasons beyond their control they were unabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince petitioner had correctly discharged its export obligations, petitioner filed a refund claim before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, DEEC Section, Mumbai. Petitioner was advised by the Customs Department to obtain a clarification from respondent no.3 including the two remaining invoices. When petitioner sought clarification from respondent no.3, respondent no.3 by its letter dated 23rd August 2016 clarified that due to the non-reversal of redemption in the computer system respondent no.3 was unable to account for the two invoices and, therefore, the request of petitioner was turned down. Respondent no.3 again stated that had petitioner only submitted those two invoices, the same would have been considered and there would not have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty or interest would have been required to be paid . Respondent no.3 in another letter dated 23rd August 2016 also admits that had petitioner submitted the two invoices earlier, the office of DGFT would have processed the same for redemption and there would not have been any liability to pay custom duty plus interest. The only reason why it was rejected was due to non-reversal of redemption in the computer system. 7. Therefore, the indisputable position is petitioner has fulfilled its export obligations and, therefore, respondent no.3 should have issued the discharge certificate. It is rather strange that a genuine case has been rejected by respondent no.3 only because the computer system in his office would not permit reversal of redem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
