2020 (1) TMI 164

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....equent sale locally. They had imported about 10 consignments during the period July 2014 to July 2015 and cleared these on payment of assessed duty including the Special Additional Duty under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. The goods were locally sold and thereafter the appellant filed three refund claims covering ten Bills of Entry for refund of SAD paid as provided under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14/09/2007 after following the prescribed procedure. The appellant had pointed out to the Department that as Rock Phosphate was fully exempt from Sales Tax/VAT from November 2011, they could not collect any sales tax on local sale of the goods. The Assistant Commissioner after examining the refund claim held tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ays to 399 days as detailed in the statement submitted along with the appeal filed with the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that though the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted that the appellant is eligible for interest for the delay in paying the refund of SAD but the period of delay has not been correctly worked out. He further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the letter dated 6th June 2017 as the date for application of refund whereas in fact refund was filed much earlier an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in Binrajka Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Hyderabad e. 2007 (218) E.L.T. 624 (Tri.-Kol) in Ajanta Leather Fashions (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C. Ports, Kolkata Appellant has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2012 (27) S.T.R. 193 (S.C) and also the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C.C., Air Port & ACC, Bangalore Vs. Pfizer Products India P. Ltd. reported in 2015 (324) E.L.T. 259 (Kar.). 5. On the other hand learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has partially allowed the appeal and granted the interest for delay of 7 days. In support of his submission, he relied upon the foll....