TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal allowed for refund claim rejection due to missing TR 6 challan; Indemnity bond option, reprocessing ordered</h1> <h3>M/s. Mamram Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs (Export) Mumbai-I</h3> The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim due to the non-submission of the original TR 6 challan. The appellant offered to provide an ... Rejection of refund claim - refund of 4% SAD under N/N. 102/2007 dt. 14.9.2007 - non-submission of original TR-6 Challan - Held that: - if an indemnity bond is given by the appellant to the department, the refund can be sanctioned. However, from the records it is not appearing that the appellant has ever given any indemnity bond, I therefore remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority with a direction that the adjudicating authority shall allow the appellant to execute an indemnity bond against the losts of original TR 6 challan and on that basis refund can be reprocessed. Needless to say that the appellant shall be granted an opportunity of personal hearing and to submit that necessary indemnity bond. The de novo adjudication shall be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand in the above terms. Issues:Refund claim rejection due to non-submission of original TR 6 challan; Appellant's submission of lost TR 6 challan and offer of an indemnity bond; Department's rejection of the indemnity bond; Lack of evidence for the offer of indemnity bond; Remand for allowing appellant to execute an indemnity bond and reprocessing the refund claim.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim amounting to &8377; 2,84,869 due to the non-submission of the original TR 6 challan. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) rejected the refund claim on the basis that the original TR 6 challan was not provided by the appellant. The appellant claimed that the original TR 6 challan was lost and offered to provide an indemnity bond in its place. However, the department did not accept this offer. The appellant's counsel stated that although they had discussions with the department regarding the indemnity bond, they could not provide any concrete evidence to support this claim.During the proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner reiterated the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing the non-submission of the original TR 6 challan as the reason for rejection. The Member (Judicial) carefully considered the submissions and the records, concluding that if the appellant offers an indemnity bond, the refund could be sanctioned. However, since there was no evidence of the appellant providing such a bond, the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority. The direction was given for the appellant to be allowed to execute an indemnity bond against the lost TR 6 challan, facilitating the reprocessing of the refund claim. The appellant was granted a personal hearing opportunity to submit the necessary indemnity bond. The de novo adjudication was mandated to be completed within three months from the date of the order, ultimately disposing of the appeal through remand.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
