2008 (11) TMI 39

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd of duty paid on inputs - hence Tribunal allowed the refund claim - Revenue submitted that respondent could claim DBK but he cannot be permitted to claim refund – tribunals’ order require no interference – substantial question not arise - 13/2008 - - - Dated:- 17-11-2008 - Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Mukesh Anand with Ms Zeba Tarannum Khan and Mr Shailesh Tiwa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xempt from payment of duty cannot be put on a disadvantageous position. The Tribunal also examined the facts and concluded that all the relevant documents such as copies of shipping bills, duly certified by customs authorities, ARE-1 forms, bank realisation certificate and the CENVAT account were filed. The Tribunal concluded, therefore, that it cannot be said that the respondent/assessee did not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ot avail of both. Since the respondent has claimed the refund, it is obvious that he would not be allowed to claim drawback. 3. We are not interfering in impugned order passed by the Tribunal as it has been rendered correctly. In our opinion, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J RAJIV SHAKDHER, J - - TaxTMI .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X