2015 (10) TMI 192

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fact of the case is that the appellant imported the consignment of "Hot Rolled Non Alloy Steel Plates" vide bill of entry No. 838005, dated 5-5-2008 and paid custom duty including SAD of an amount Rs. 16,85,510/- vide TR6 Challan No. 20597745, dated 9-5-2008. The consignment was stopped by DRI as the goods were purportedly mis-declared as "Prime" and benefit of exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 was wrongly claimed. The appellant were issued the show cause notice No. DRI/MZU/D/INV-02/2008-09, dated 6-8-2008 for claiming wrong exemption and differential duty of Rs. 4,38,23,262/- was demanded. The appellant paid differential duty so demanded vide Cash Nos. 154/13-5-2008 and 203/16-5-2008 which included 4% SAD amount....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ect matter of this appeal. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection order of the lower authority. Hence the appellant is before me. 2.  Shri Vinay N. Ansulkar, the ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that both the lower authority have wrongly rejected the refund claim on the ground of time bar and alleged violation of the condition Para 4.2 of CBEC Board Circular No. 6/2008-Cus., dated 28-4-2008, inasmuch as the appellant filed more than one refund claim against particular bill of entry. It is his submission that refund claim should not have been rejected on time bar for reason that refund in respect of very same amount was already....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cribed, the limitation of one year shall not apply. 3. On the other hand, Shri. M.S. Reddy, ld. Dy. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. 5. It is admitted fact that the appellant initially filed the refund claim for an amount of Rs. 1,81,11,555/- which included present amount of Rs. 16,85,510/- however the sanctioning authority disposed of the refund for an amount of Rs. 1,64,26,045/- but in respect of this amount of Rs. 16,85,510/- neither rejected nor even disposed of and has not given any findings for this refund. As stated by the ld. counsel for the appellant on th....