2024 (6) TMI 915

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... issioner ( AR ) for the respondent ORDER The dispute in the appeal has its roots in recovery of Rs.4,43,973/-, due as 'special additional duty (SAD)' of customs on imports that was discharged by debit of 'scrips' under the export promotion schemes in Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) for which refund, on fulfillment of conditions in notification no. 102/2007-Cus dated 14th September 2007, was allowed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... can be disposed off, the appeal is taken up for such with the assistance of Learned Authorized Representative. It is seen that an identical dispute decided by the Tribunal, in M/s Jindal Export Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (EP), Nhava Sheva [2017 (349) ELT 139 (Tri-Mumbai), had held that. '4. It appears from the records that the duty claimed to have been paid in excess was in effect a was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... circumstance. There is, thus, no justification for interference with the order of the lower authorities who have rejected the claim for refund.' 4. It is, thus, clear that debit of 'scrips' does not suffice for discharge of liability of 'special additional duty (SAD)' under Customs Tariff Act, 1975; in such circumstances, eligibility for refund would arise only upon discharge of liability withou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X