9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LD THAT:- On going through the Shipping Bill, it is found that it is clearly mentioned that differential cess of Rs.29,499/- was debited from the PLA vide Entry Sl.No.13 dated 08.12.2008, the said fact has been verified by the Inspector putting his initial dated 08.12.2008. Further, on going through the order of let export order, which is having some fabrication on face of it where some cutting is there thereafter signature was put and date of 06/12 was mentioned. It is undisputed fact that let export order cannot be issued before payment of full duty by the assessee, in that circumstances, it cannot be said that let export order was issued to the appellant on 06.12.2008. Therefore, the date of let export order is to be taken as 08.12.2008. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Shipping Bill was not assessed finally. Thereafter they filed refund claim again on 10.02.2009, which was again returned back to them. The said refund claim was returned on the premise that vide letter dated vide letter dated 15.09.2009 stating that the refund claim is pre-mature and Shipping Bill was not assessed till yet. The appellant received a letter dated 08.01.2013 stating that the Shipping Bill has already been finally assessed on 14.03.2009. Thereafter, the refund claim was submitted for consideration. The refund claim was rejected holding that as the Shipping Bill was assessed on 06.12.2008 and the let export order (LEO) was given on 06.12.2008 and on the said date, the appellant was liable to pay duty on export of Iron Ore F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xport order cannot be issued before payment of full duty by the assessee, in that circumstances, it cannot be said that let export order was issued to the appellant on 06.12.2008. Therefore, the date of let export order is to be taken as 08.12.2008. 8. In that circumstances, as iron ore fines were exempted from payment of duty vide Notification No.129/08 dated 07.12.2008, no duty was payable on 08.12.2008, therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay duty. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled for the refund claim of the duty paid. 9. In that view of the fact, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any. ( Operative part of the order was pronounced in the open Court. ) - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
