2017 (10) TMI 158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2008 to November 2008. 3. Circular No.18/2008 issued in F.No.467/45/2008-CusV dt. 10.11.2008 issued by the CBEC, inter alia, clarified that till 31.12.2008, existing practice of computation of export duty and cesses, while taking the FOB value as cum-duty price, should be continued and that with effect from 01-01-2009, for purposes of calculation of export duty, transaction value would be taken into account. 3. As a resultant of this circular, MMTC preferred refund claims in respect of 17 shipping bills. All these refund claims were rejected by the original authority for various reasons, inter alia, not filed within prescribed time, not produced original exporters copy etc. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide an impugned order No.848/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4.   Actual export after exemption given to export of iron ore fine on 07.12.2008.   Original Shipping Bill prepared on 5.12.2008. Thereafter, cancelled due to substitution of vessel. Actual export on 9.12.2008 vide fresh Shipping Bill No.3228873 (Page 64 of Vol. 1)     1   1,58,28,461/- paid on 6.12.2008 vide TR 6 Challan No.102455, dated 6.12.2008     (Vide Page 59 of Vol.1)   5.1 In respect of category covered by Sl.No.(1), in the chart above, ld. Advocate submits that these nine shipping bills involving a refund claim of Rs. 2,31,04,965/- relate to the dispute where they had filed an application before the Settlement Commission and on which an order of settlement had been issued ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ay of filing another shipping bill No.3228873 dt. 09.12.2008 on which no export duty was paid, as there was no export duty liability on the actual date of export. Therefore export duty paid on the cancelled shipping bill dt. 5.12.2008 is very much refundable to them. 5.5. In respect of departmental appeals C/377/2012, C/378/2012, ld. Advocate submits that these also relate to shipping bills where the original authority had rejected the refund claim on the ground that they had been filed beyond the period of 6 months. Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed their appeal on the grounds that they would fall within the category of government organization and hence extended period of limitation would be available to them. Ld. Advocate submits that o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iled before the Commissioner (Appeals) where in para 24 therein they have flagged the fact that the adjudicating authority though had mentioned the said consignment in para-3 of his order, however had not taken into account his claim in the operative order. 7. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 8.1 The take away from the submissions of both sides is that in respect of assessee's appeal No.C/14/2012, MMTC is not pressing for the refund claim in respect of Shipping Bill Nos.3069232, 3140669, 3140675, 3178945, 3178954, 3051474, 3051462, 3096436, 3096433 of category covered by Sl.No.(1) and Shipping Bill Nos.97173 & 97669 of category covered by Sl.No.(2). Hence Appeals in respect of these shipping bills are dismissed. So or....