9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of which, the present refund claim was filed, totalling Rs. 14,35,763.80 - further it is found that none of the evidence led by the appellant before the court below, have been found to be incorrect. The rejection of the part refund claim of Rs. 1,45,754.45 is set aside - the Adjudicating Authority are directed to grant the refund of this amount within a period of 45 days alongwith interest as per rules - appeal allowed. - Customs Appeal No. 53224 of 2018(SM) - FINAL ORDER NO. 50466/2023 - Dated:- 12-4-2023 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. Tamanna Alam, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER The issue involved in this appeal is rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 23.12.2015, which were imported vide (i) bill of entry No. 9553280 and involving SAD Rs. 2,17,128/- and five paper cup machines were seized relating to (ii) bill of entry no. 2002700 dated 23.07.2015, involving SAD of Rs. 1,78,277.60/- Thus, it appeared that a part of the imported goods vide aforementioned two bills of entry, could not have been sold till 23.12.2015. 4. The appellant had claimed that they had sold the imported machines vide bill of entry no. 9553280 between 17.06.2015 to 27.08.2015 and goods imported vide bill of entry no. 2002770 between 27.08.2015 to 25.09.2015, as per the sale invoices and calculation sheet. Thus, it appeared that the proportionate amount of SAD Rs. 1,45,754.45 could not be entertained. Accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 016, which have not been made RUD in the show cause notice. It is further urged that appellant had produced cogent evidences like sales vouchers, sales tax returns, extract of the stock register for the relevant period, and the Chartered Accountant Certificate and evidence of payment of VAT, which have not been found to be untrue. Further urges that it makes little sense to deposit the amount by way of VAT/Sales tax and thereafter claim refund, without having actually sold the goods. It is also urged that the seizure of DRI on 31.12.2015 does not relate to the two bills of entry, and such allegation on presumption and have no legs to stand. It is further urged that there is no scope of assumption and presumption, when the appellant have pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
