2005 (10) TMI 453

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt. Shri N.P. Jagasia, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. -  This is a departmental appeal against OIA No. 9/04-Cus., dated 19-10-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) Visakhapatnam. 2. The brief facts are as follows : The respondents on conversion of their vessel from foreign to coastal run on 27-10-97....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peals). The Commissioner (Appeals) after detailed examination of the issue allowed the appeal of the respondent with consequential relief. Revenue is aggrieved over the impugned order on the following grounds. (1)     The case laws relied on by the Commissioner (Appeals) are distinguishable. In the present case, originally the claim was filed with an entirely different forma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tory period of limitation under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Miles India Ltd. [1987 (30) E.L.T. 641 (SC)]. 3. Shri N.P. Jagasia, learned advocate appeared for the respondents and Shri Ganesh Havanur learned SDR for the revenue. 4. We have heard both sides. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has narrated the entire facts of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tice based on Board's Circular dated 22-1-85 as well as 6-11-97 do not address the key question raised in the instant dispute namely to which custom house (Jurisdiction not being defined for filing such refund claim), the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hyderabad Industries Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi [2003 (162) E.L.T. 258] is inapplicable to the instant case and is distinguishable. In view of....