9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mukesh Sharma, (General Manager) had appeared on the dates fixed during Feb. and March, 2022. Thereafter, due to COVID disturbances, there was communication gap, due to which nobody appeared on two-three dates and the appeal was dismissed for default for non-prosecution on 28th October, 2022. Counsel for the appellant urges that there is no deliberate latches on the part of the appellant and the default is wholly unintentional due to COVID and other disturbances. Accordingly, he prays for restoration of their appeal. Further states that they are ready for hearing on merits. 3. Upon hearing the parties, I deem it fit and proper to condone the default in appearance and restore the appeal to its original number for hearing on merits. 4. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was also held that the demand of duty is not sustainable and hence, the question of interest becomes non est. It was also held that the subject goods are freely importable and the same are not available for confiscation because all the subjected goods have already been re-exported. Consequent upon this, the amount of Rs.9,78,291/- was refunded to the appellant vide refund order no.R/167/AC/ICD/AKJ/2015-2016 dated 28.05.2015. Since interest on the amount was not sanctioned, the appellant filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) for sanction of interest. This appeal was allowed by way of remand vide order-in-appeal no.CC(A)CUS/DII/ ICD PPG/493/2016 dated 22.06.2016. Consequently, the appellant filed claim of interest, which was reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2015. 10. Ld. Authorised Representative for the respondent/Revenue relies on the impugned order. 11. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the Revenue have encashed the bank guarantee for Rs.9,78,291/- on 17.05.2012, which matter already stands adjudicated vide order-in-original dated 18.06.2014, wherein it has been held that the appellant have completed the re-export obligations on 31.03.2012 and no amount was required to be recovered from them, upon issue of the show cause notice in May, 2012. Further, the said order-in-original dated 18.06.2014 has attained finality. Under the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I hold that the amount encashed by way of bank guarantee remained with the Revenue as deposit and accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
