Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether refund could be denied for delay in receipt of AR 3 certificates when the goods removed under Chapter X were admittedly received by the consignee.
Analysis: The relevant consideration was whether the goods cleared under Chapter X had actually reached the consignee's factory. The record showed that copies of the AR 3 forms had been submitted along with the claim and that the consignee had certified receipt of the goods. The Revenue did not dispute receipt, nor did it contend that the goods were diverted or not received. In such a situation, the self-contained Chapter X scheme could not be displaced by importing provisions applicable to another procedure merely because there was delay or procedural defect in the AR 3 documentation.
Conclusion: The refund could not be denied on the ground of delay in AR 3 certificates when receipt of goods by the consignee was not in dispute; the Revenue appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Chapter X, actual receipt of the goods by the consignee is the ining factor for the refund claim, and mere delay in rewarehousing documentation does not defeat relief where receipt is undisputed.