AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 672
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns were filed by the respondent-assessee. The refund applications were for the refund of amounts in view of duty paid and duty benefit claimed under the notification dated 19th May 2002 for import of goods under advance licences dated 23rd January 1995 and for import of goods under advance licences dated 7th February 1995. On 5th March 2010, the refund applications were rejected by orders-in-original. Appeals were preferred by the respondent before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). By order dated 4th May 2012, the appeals were dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order in appeals, the respondent preferred appeals before the Appellate Tribunal which have been allowed by setting aside the order in appeal and the orders-in-original. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on to the applications for refund submitted by the respondent in the prescribed form. He invited our attention to clause9 of the refund applications. He submitted that the respondent did not comply with the mandatory requirement of furnishing documents as set out in clause9. The submission is that the respondent did not produce originals of Bill of Entry, Customs attested invoice and packing lists though various sub-clauses of clause 9 of the refund applications required the respondent to do so. He invited our attention to the orders-in-original as well as orders in appeal. He urged that the Assistant Commissioner has recorded findings of fact against the respondent on the ground that the respondent has failed to produce the relevant materi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the logging of exports of the respondent therein which order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and that is how an appeal was preferred before this Court. 6. We have perused the applications for refund submitted by the respondent. They are in prescribed form. The material portion of clause9 reads thus: "9. Enclosures (in original) in support of refund claim (please put a tick mark (›∕) against the document being enclosed) a) Letter of authorization from the importer/buyer in case of applicant is an agent. b) Triplicate copy of Bill of Entry/ Post parcel wrapper/ shipping bill/ baggage receipt/ or the purchase invoice. c) Duty Challan/ other do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore, the orders-in-original are confirmed on the ground that the said documents are not produced. 7. Now, we turn to the findings recorded by the Appellate Tribunal. In paragraph6.1, the Appellate Tribunal after perusal of challans, which were produced before the Commissioner (Appeals), has held that the challans indicate that the amount is deposited provisionally as per public notice No.197/96. The challans referred to Advance Licences numbers and date and DEEC book number and date. The challans did not refer to any Bill of Entry. The finding of fact has been recorded by the Appellate Tribunal that it is evident from the perusal of the challans that duty is paid with reference to the number and date of the Advance Licences. The Challans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls of entry......." In paragraph6.4 it is held thus: "6.4 There is no dispute that the goods were imported under the Advance Licence and exemption under Notification no.204/92 dated 19 May 1992 was claimed by the Appellants at the time of import. The Advance Licence and the said Notification require actual user of the imported goods in the manufacture of exported goods. There is no nothing on the record and it is not even the case of the department that, the exempt material was sold, transferred or otherwise dispose of in the domestic market. The fact that the export obligation has been discharged and DEC book is duly logged in, clearly indicates that the exempt material is used in the manufacture of export product. The record indicat....