2019 (2) TMI 1387

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ected towards the same impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). 2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Mohd. Altaf, learned Asstt. Commr. (A.R.) for the Revenue and Shri Bimal Jain, learned Advocate for the Respondent, we find that the appellant imported certain items and cleared the same on payment of duties of Customs including SAD. They were entitled to the refund of the SAD paid, in terms of Notification No.102/20007-CUS dated 14.09.2007, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. Accordingly they filed four refund claims on 17.04.2008, 26.12.2008, 30.08.2008 and 23.03.2009. 3. As the refund applications were not being processed by the Revenue, the appellant approached them by way of various reminders.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ordingly she set aside the impugned order and allowed the refund claims. 6. The said order of Commissioner(Appeals) is impugned by both the sides before us. 7. As regards the Revenue's appeal, the same is on the sole ground that the Commissioner(Appeals) has wrongly held that non-production of original Bill of Entry was not required. However, we do not find any merits in the above contention in the absence of any provision shown by the Revenue that such original copy of Bill of Entry was required. Further the facts are also undisputed that such copy was produced by the assessee while filing the refund claims, which stands mis-placed by the Revenue. In such a scenario the assessee cannot be expected to produce the original Bill of Entr....