2015 (12) TMI 1570

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Appellant Shri H.M. Dixit, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for Respondent ORDER The appellant, M/s Jaya Hind Industries Ltd. were supplied goods to Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.  M/s Mahindra & Mahindra in turn exported the goods. For the purpose of procuring goods duty free from the appellant, M/s Mahindra & Mahindra were issuing CT-1 certificate. In case of one of CT-1 certificates after ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that no evidence has been produced by the appellant to establish that there was no unjust enrichment. 2.  Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the relevant date for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation in this case should be date of payment of duty which in the month of May, 2009 and not the date of export, which was from June, 2008 to January, 2009. He further arg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... goods domestically under CT-1 and the buyers have in turn exported the goods. They had paid duty on the domestic transaction and hence refund sought cannot be equated with the rebate and hence, Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear this appeal. 4.1  The transaction on which duty was paid was a domestic clearance. The appellants have not exported the goods themselves but have supplied agai....