2016 (6) TMI 817

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n either side, and perused the materials placed on record, including the counter affidavit filed by respondents. 3. The issue, which falls for consideration in this Writ Petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to refund of the amount, claimed by them, in cash, as the reward scheme scrips has been withdrawn. 4. The petitioner filed Bills of Entry for import of the products, viz., Panasonic Facsimile Machines, and filed five Bills of Entry, and paid 4% additional duty of Rs. 8,59,470.92/-, by availing the benefit of the Notification No.102 of 2007 Customs, dated 14.09.2007. The goods were cleared, and subsequently, on 13.01.2010, the petitioner filed five applications before the second respondent/Deputy Commissioner of Cust....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd applications out of five are concerned, which pertain to Bills of Entry, dated 11.12.2008 and 21.11.2008, the same were rejected as time barred. 7. Against the aforesaid order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the first respondent/Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). In the memorandum of grounds of Appeal, it is specifically contended by the petitioner that they had not availed the benefit of the notification No.C.N.41 of 2005, which allow the importers to avail the drawback or CENVAT Credit of additional duty, leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, as they are only the trader of the goods. Further, it was stated that the applications for refund in respect of three Bills of Entry, da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....im for refund has been rightly rejected. With regard to the decision of this Court passed in W.P.No.17012 of 2001, dated 03.08.2010, it was pointed out that the said case is distinguishable. 10. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though notification No.41 of 2005 contains a clause, stating that the importer shall be entitled to avail of the drawback, or CENVAT Credit of additional duty, leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act as against the amount debited in the said certificate, the petitioner, as a matter of fact, has not availed any drawback or CENVAT Credit, as they are not manufacturers, but only traders. That apart, the petitioner pointed out that the Board has....