https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759015 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal of a customs broker who sought refund of CVD recovered by the department. The broker had filed Bills of Entry for importers claiming exemption under Notification 30/2004-CE, but department later recovered CVD after one year claiming exemption was unavailable. Though the broker's protest letter dated 06.06.2014 did not specifically mention "Under Protest," CESTAT held the letter's contents showed protest intent. Following Supreme Court's decision in SRF Ltd. case confirming CVD exemption availability, the broker filed refund claim which was rejected as time-barred. CESTAT ruled the amount was deposited under protest on department's insistence, not voluntarily, making refund claim valid with interest. en-us Fri, 20 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Sep 2024 09:10:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759015 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal of a customs broker who sought refund of CVD recovered by the department. The broker had filed Bills of Entry for importers claiming exemption under Notification 30/2004-CE, but department later recovered CVD after one year claiming exemption was unavailable. Though the broker's protest letter dated 06.06.2014 did not specifically mention "Under Protest," CESTAT held the letter's contents showed protest intent. Following Supreme Court's decision in SRF Ltd. case confirming CVD exemption availability, the broker filed refund claim which was rejected as time-barred. CESTAT ruled the amount was deposited under protest on department's insistence, not voluntarily, making refund claim valid with interest. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 20 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759015