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>Refund granted for imported goods, but denied for late filings. Appeals dismissed, remanded for more evidence.</h1> <h3>C.C. -Kandla Versus Baburam Harichand (Vice-Versa)</h3> C.C. -Kandla Versus Baburam Harichand (Vice-Versa) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Refund claims of Special Additional Duty (SAD) on imported 'Betel Nuts Industrial Grade'.2. Correlation between imported goods and goods sold by Baburam Harichand.3. Limitation period for filing refund claims.Summary:1. Refund Claims of SAD on Imported 'Betel Nuts Industrial Grade':Baburam Harichand filed refund claims of SAD paid on the import of 'Betel Nuts Industrial Grade'. The revenue denied the refund claim, believing that the imported industrial betel nuts were not the same as the edible betel nuts sold by Baburam Harichand. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim, holding that edible betel nut and industrial betel nut are the same. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) denied the benefit for two Bills of Entry where the refund was filed beyond the limitation period.2. Correlation Between Imported Goods and Goods Sold:The Commissioner (Appeals) provided detailed findings on the correlation between the imported goods and the goods sold by Baburam Harichand. It was noted that there was no allegation of non-payment of VAT on the sale of goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) referenced various sources, including HSN, tariff descriptions, and DGFT, to substantiate that areca nut, betel nut, and supari are the same product. The Commissioner also emphasized that the objections raised by the adjudicating authority regarding the name, nature, and status of the importer or buyers of imported goods were irrelevant for granting the refund under Notification 102/2007.3. Limitation Period for Filing Refund Claims:The Commissioner (Appeals) maintained that the refund claims for two Bills of Entry were filed beyond the one-year limitation period specified in Notification 102/2007 as amended by Notification 93/2008-Cus. The refund claims were rejected for being filed three days and one day late, respectively. Baburam Harichand contested this, asserting that they had filed the claims within the limitation period and produced evidence to support their claim. This evidence was not examined by the Commissioner (Appeals).Final Decision:The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed as the revenue did not contest the arguments given by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the correlation between the imported goods and the goods sold by Baburam Harichand. The appeals filed by Baburam Harichand were allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the evidence produced by the appellant regarding the limitation period. The decision was dictated and pronounced in the open court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
