TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 1110
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he sponsoring authority, have imported/procured locally, certain equipments/capital goods without payment of duty by availing the exemption under Notification No. 13/81-Cus., dated 9-2-1981 read with Notification No. 53/97-Cus. and Notification No. 123/81-C.E. and bonded under several Bills of Entry, for warehousing. During the course of audit, the Department had observed that the Secretariat of Industrial Assistance or SIA in short has permitted manufacture and export of hardware and import of related goods free of duty but the Appellants have not satisfied the value addition norms to the extent of 77.3% and the goods procured by them locally were not connected with the development and export of software and do not qualify for the exemption under the Notifications ibid and held that the Appellants had wrongly availed the benefit of the Customs & Excise Notifications. The adjudicating authority had issued a show cause notice to the Appellants proposing recovery of Customs duty of Rs. 93,44,817/- and Excise duty of Rs. 5,95,459/- (Total Rs. 99,40,276/-). The adjudicating authority, after due process of law, in his first Order-In-Original No. 175/1999 dated 16-7-1999, had confirmed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... testing/measuring equipments against which the Appellants, for the second time filed appeal before the CESTAT & the Hon'ble CESTAT vide final order No. 1504/2010 dated 23-6-2010, have allowed their appeal in full. It appeared that the adjudicating authority, based on the refund claim filed by them, had sent a show cause notice to the Appellants proposing rejection of the refund claimed by the Appellants which was returned by the postal authority with remarks "left returned to sender" and since there was no response from the respondents, vide ex-parte Order-In-Original No. 264/2011 dated 26-12-2011, the adjudicating authority had rejected the claim for refund of Customs duty of Rs. 67,59,522/- and the interest amount of Rs. 1,30,56,112/- stating that refund is not admissible under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 on various grounds. This order, sent to the Appellants was also stated to be returned by the postal authority with the same remarks "left retuned to sender". This order as well as the show cause notice was received by the Appellants on 23-5-2012, after written request to the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellants have filed this appeal o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... perverse and liable to be set aside. They have also contested the finding of the adjudicating authority that Shri B.M. Tambakkad is not authorized to file refund application by filing copy of their company's Board Resolution dated 24-1-2011 wherein the company had authorized the incumbent to file refund application. 7. The Appellants submitted that they had filed the refund claim on 21-4-2011 and since more than three months have elapsed from the date of preferring the refund claim, they are entitled for interest on delayed refund under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In support of their defense, the Appellants relied in the judicious decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories v. UOI reported in 2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 2012 (27) S.T.R. 193 (S.C.) and various other decisions and finally contended that in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT reported in 2006 (196) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) = 2007 (8) S.T.R. 193 (S.C.), they are entitled to refund of interest of Rs. 1,30,56,112/- along with interest and pleaded to set aside the impugned order and sanction refund of duty of Rs. 67,59,522/- with interes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ft, returned to sender" and therefore, he was left with no option but to hold that the legal requirement of servicing of show cause notice has been attended to and principles of natural justice has been met by affixing the show cause notice on the notice Board of his office. I find that, without considering other options for service of the show cause notice, the adjudicating authority had passed the order without giving an opportunity to the Appellants to present their case in person before him and also, it could be seen that the adjudicating authority has neither made any efforts to ascertain whether the Appellants company is functioning nor has he made any further efforts to serve the show cause notice or intimation of personal hearing for a second time to the Appellants but passed the impugned order in haste within a time span of 13 days from the date of sending the first and only show cause notice. 10 (ii). I further noticed that the adjudicating authority, in the impugned order has observed that the Appellants have not provided the original TR-6 Challans evidencing the payment of duty and interest but filed an affidavit sworn before Notary stating the original TR-6 Chall....