2008 (2) TMI 673

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Respondent. [Order]. - Commissioner, the Commissioner held that the order of the Assistant Commissioner sanctioning refund of Rs. 1,50,00/- to the appellants was not in order. After hearing both sides on the stay petition, the petition is dismissed and the appeal itself is taken up. 2. The apellants had obtained an advance license dated 22-1-2003 to import automobile components....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of the bank guarantee they had furnished and submitted the EODC. The original authority sanctioned the refund considering the delay in obtaining the EODC in time as due to the time taken by the DGFT. 4. The department filed an appeal against the order of the original authority. Disposing the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed in the impugned order that the appellant was not dili....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id as per the assessment of the proper officer and the assessment was not challenged, refund claim contrary to the assessment could not be granted. The appellant had failed to challenge the orders of the lower authorities. With the above observations he set aside the order of the original authority and rejected the refund claim. In the appeal before the Tribunal and during hearing, it is submitted....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(Mad.) = 2007 (8) S.T.R. 341 (Mad.), wherein the Hon'ble High Court had held the same view. It was decided that furnishing of bank guarantee was not payment of duty, therefore, limitation in Section 27 did not apply to refund of the amount received on encashment of the bank guarantee by the department for delay in furnishing EODC. 5. The ld. SDR submits that the party was informed of the d....