9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be noted that the department does not deny the claim of the respondent for eligibility of drawback. This aspect has been taken note of by the Commissioner (Appeals) who has directed the respondent to make a representation for claim of drawback. Further, the original authority has made inquiry and on verification found that the respondent is eligible for refund. For these reasons, there are no m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri M. Selvakumar appeared and argued for the department. It is submitted that the respondent had filed the refund claim under section 26A of the Customs Act, 1962 for refund of the import duties paid by them in consequence of the goods having been re-exported. It is submitted that the respondent would be eligible for drawback only and the Commissioner (Appeals) has directed for adjustment in draw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s had imported goods and thereafter had intended to re- export them. They had paid the entire anti-dumping duty as well as Basic Customs Duty before export of the goods. Thereupon, the respondent preferred refund claim under section 26A for refund of the import duty as the goods are being re-exported. The said application for refund was sanctioned by the original authority after making due verific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund amount paid for the reason that in case of drawback, the respondent would be eligible only for 98% of the refund / drawback. There is no error in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the impugned order does not require any interference. The learned counsel prayed that the appeal filed by the department may be dismissed. 5. Heard both sides. 6. On perusal of records and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
