2015 (1) TMI 68

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the Appellant. Shri Debasis Ghosh, 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appeal. 5. Revenue relied on the Supreme 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eady an ad hoc exemption order which was duly communicated 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. ....