2015 (11) TMI 1156

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 Respondent : Mr. M.R. Sharma, DR ORDER Per Mr. R.K. Singh : Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 30.10.2009 which upheld the Order-in-Original dated 11.08.2009 in terms of which the appellants refund claim for Rs. 2,88,51,903/- was rejected. 2. The facts of the case are as under:- The appellant filed a refund claim for refund of the customs duty paid on the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es required for being eligible for the said benefit. The Bills of Entry were thus finally assessed allowing the benefit claimed by the appellant under project import in terms of Notification No.21/2002 [S.No.399 (iv)], dated 01.03.2002. Therefore, the refund claim filed on the ground that as per Notification No.21/2002 (Sr.No.400) it was eligible for nil rate of duty was rejected by the concerned ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ited judgements of Bombay High Court in the case of Hero Cycles Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2009 (240) ELT 490 (Bom.)] and Delhi High Court in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. Vs. CC, Delhi [2010 (250) ELT 030 (Del.)] in support of its contention. 4. Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand stated, that judgements of Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court cited by the appellant are....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent of Bills of Entry the appellant did not claim benefit of Notification No.21/2002 (Sr.No.400) nor did it produce the requisite documents/ certificates required for claiming benefit under Notification No. 21/2002 (serial No. 400). Thus, it is obvious that contrary to what has been claimed by the appellant, at the time of assessment of Bills of Entry, it was entitled to the benefit of the said No....