9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants in the present Appeal is whether limitation under Section 26A is applicable in present case considering the facts and circumstances of the case. From the statutory provision it is clear that provisions of Section 26A is applicable while importing goods for home consumption and the provisions governing payment of duty on re-import of goods is as per the Notification No. 46/2017 dated 30.06.2017. Once the respondent satisfied the condition of said Notification by paying drawback drawn with interest, respondent was not liable to pay duty as demanded by the appellant. There is no merit in the present appeal and the appeal is dismissed. - Hon'ble Mr. P.A. Augustian, Member ( Judicial ) Mr. Rajesh Shastry , AR for the Appellant Mr. P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al is whether provisions of Section 26A of the Customs Act is applicable in this case and whether the refund application is hit by limitation. The learned AR reiterated the grounds of appeal and drew my attention to the provisions of Section 26A of the Customs Act, 1962 read as follows: Section 26A. Refund of import duty in certain cases (1) Where on the importation of any goods capable of being easily identified as such imported goods, any duty has been paid on clearance of such goods for home consumption, such duty shall be refunded to the person by whom or on whose behalf it was paid, if 3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the import made by the respondent is not an import for home consumption but it s a re-import and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g on Section 27 of the said Act of 1962 while dismissing the application of the appellant-Company . 4. Ld. counsel for the respondent also relied upon the following decisions:- 1. Premraj and Ganpatraj and Company P. Ltd., v. Asst. Collector of Customs [1977(1) ELT (J 166) (Mad.) 2. Asst. Collector of Customs v. Premraj and Ganpatraj and Compnay P. Ltd. [1978 (2) ELT (J 630) (Mad.) (D.B.)] 3. HMM Ltd. v. Administrator, Bangalore City [1997 (91) E.L.T. 27 (S.C) 4. Arvind Lifestyle Brands Ltd. v. Imder Secretary, Technology Development Board, New Delhi [2019 (368) E.L.T. 387(Kar.)] 5. Heard both sides, it is an admitted fact that the respondent was not supposed to pay CVD after introduction of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2007. However, it was paid at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
