2016 (5) TMI 831

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appellant. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant have imported glass motifs and claimed exemption Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. dated 1.3.2001 (Sr. No.106). However, the exemption was denied by the assessing officer, accordingly, the appellant has paid the duty. Against the denial of the exemption notification, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide Order-in-Appeal No. 525/2002-MCH dt. 20.02.2002 allowed the appeal. The appellant filed a refund claim for the duty so paid along with interest. The Deputy Commissioner vide Order No.S/10-01/02(I) dt. 30.09.2003 sanctioned the refund of Rs. 9,51,348/- and credited an amount of Rs. 9,41,299/- into Consumer Welfare Fund. In the appeal of the appellant,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mitted the details of co-relation between the imported goods and corresponding export goods in a chart. The appellant also submits Chartered Accountant certificate wherein it was certified that all the goods imported were used in export goods. He submits that Ld. Commissioner, without proper appreciation of the record submitted by the appellant arbitrarily held that appellant could not establish that the imported goods were subsequently exported. This finding of the Commissioner is without the basis of any contrary material or evidence to the document submitted by the appellant. He submits that the appellants have exported 100% goods whatever goods imported were used in the export goods, the Chartered Accountant also certified that the appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uld not show one to one co-relation to the effect that the imported goods were exported, therefore it could not be establish that the incidence of Customs duty paid by the appellant has not been passed on to any other person. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find that first of all the adjudication order rejected the refund on the ground that the appellant could not establish that the imported goods have not been exported and the same was upheld by the Ld. Commissioner. I find serious error in the adjudication order dt. 27.12.2012 for the reason that in the earlier proceedings, the refund was sanctioned and credited into Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment, therefore, the sancti....