1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Appellate Tribunal affirms rejection of refund claim for machinery spare parts shortages.</h1> The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the refund claim for shortages detected after clearance was inadmissible. ... Refund - Imports Issues:1. Admissibility of refund claim for shortage/short shipment of machinery spare parts.2. Failure to inform Customs about shortages.3. Claiming refund against incorrect Bills of Entries.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited against the rejection of their refund claim amounting to Rs. 8,85,758 for shortages detected in two consignments of machinery spare parts after clearance from Customs. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Kolkata rejected the appeal, stating that the refund claim was not admissible.2. The appellant imported the machinery spare parts with shortages detected at their premises post-clearance, without informing Customs about the shortages at the time of clearance. The appellant received replacements for the shortages from the supplier, claiming it as a free replacement. Subsequently, the appellant filed a claim for duty refund as duty was paid twice for the same items. However, the lower authority rejected the claim, which was then remanded by the Commissioner (Appeals) but ultimately rejected again.3. During the hearing, it was highlighted that the shortages were detected after clearance, and the appellant claimed refund against Bills of Entries dated 6-4-1992, where the short-receipted materials were subsequently received by the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the appellant failed to inform Customs about the shortages in the Bills of Entries concerned. The Commissioner found merit in the argument that the shortages were noticed post-clearance, and the refund claim was made against incorrect Bills of Entries, leading to the rejection of the appeal.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the refund claim for shortages detected after clearance was inadmissible, especially as the appellant failed to inform Customs about the shortages and claimed refunds against incorrect Bills of Entries. The rejection of the appeal was based on the procedural and substantive errors in the refund claim process, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
