TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 68
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hosh, Cost Accountant, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim filed by the respondents in respect of the medical equipment imported by the respondents. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents were settin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eme Court's decision in the case of CCE, Kanpur v. Flock Fabric reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). The contention is that as the respondents had paid duty without any protest and had not challenged the assessment order, the respondents are not entitled for the refund. Revenue also submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Aman Medical....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nicated to the Customs, hence the impugned order was rightly passed. 7. We find that the respondents filed refund claim on the basis of ad hoc exemption Order dated 16-2-2010 which was already in existence at the time of import. However, the same was not brought to the notice of the Customs as the respondents were not aware of that order. From the ad hoc exemption order we find that the same....