9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1045X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty paid by them at the time of release of the goods; on the other hand, the authority seeks to deny the same as the importer-appellant has an opportunity to take credit of the same in their Returns. The refund cannot be rejected on the basis of a mere apprehension. The Chartered Accountant having gone into the accounts of the appellants has certified that the incidence of duty is not passed on. It also implies that CENVAT credit has not been taken. Learned Counsel for the appellant makes a statement before the Bench that such credit has not been taken till date also. In view of the same, a part of refund has been rejected on mere apprehension and therefore such rejection cannot be upheld. Conclusion - Refunds should not be denied based on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be taken by the appellants or would have been taken by the appellants at a later date. He submits that the appellant is entitled for the impugned refund of Rs.2,57,625/-. 4. On the other hand, learned Authorized Representative for the Department reiterates the findings of the impugned order and submits that the original authority has elaborately discussed the reasons for denial for the part of the refund in the Order-in-Original. He also submits that this point was not agitated by the appellants during the appellate proceedings and in the present appeal also, no such ground has been taken. 5. In rebuttal, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue being a question of law, can be taken on any stage during the appeal. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority, whose order was upheld by the appellate authority records self-contradictory findings; on one hand, the original authority accepts the Chartered Accountant certificate which shows that the appellants have not passed on the incidence of duty paid by them at the time of release of the goods; on the other hand, the authority seeks to deny the same as the importer-appellant has an opportunity to take credit of the same in their Returns. I am of the considered opinion that refund cannot be rejected on the basis of a mere apprehension. The Chartered Accountant having gone into the accounts of the appellants has certified that the incidence of duty is not passed on. It also implies that CENVAT credit has not been taken. Learned Counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
