2012 (9) TMI 1089

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t is not necessary to serve formal notice of rule on Respondent No. 1­Union of India. Petitions are taken up for final disposal at this stage. 2. Facts as arising in Special Civil Application No. 5057 of 2012 may be noticed since essential facts are common in all petitions : 2.1 Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in import of timber. Petitioner imported different consignments of timber in the financial years 2007­08 and 2008­09. The petitioner paid the basic customs duty as also the special additional duties on such imported goods. Case of the petitioner is that such additional duty was to be refunded on the petitioner producing proof of payment of Sales Tax or Value Added T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rom Chem Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of Cus., Banglore reported in 2006 (199) E.L.T. 751 (Tri.­Bang.) and observing that the respondent is eligible to avail benefit under exemption notification No. 102/2007­Customs, dated 14-9-2007? [c]     Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law, by not considering the issue of interpretation of exemption notification by applying ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Novopan India Ltd. v. CCE & Cus; Hyderabad reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.)? [d]    Whether the impugned order of the Tribunal, which is passed without referring to and giving its finding on all submissions and precedents ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner that the refund claim was based on payment of special additional duty which was to be refunded upon payment of Sales Tax/VAT. The case of the petitioner is clearly covered by the judgment of this Court dated 7-7-2011 passed in Tax Appeal No. 86 of 2011 and connected appeals. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Customs Department, at one stage, called upon the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee of 100% of the refund claimed in view of the interim arrangement made by the Supreme Court in its order dated 24-11-2011. The petitioner, accordingly, also furnished such bank guarantee. However, subsequently such bank guarantee was returned. 2.5 We may also notice that similar facts arise in Special Civil Applications No. 5....