TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 12
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sal for convenience. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Authorized Representative Sh. P.Gopakumar, Joint Commissioner, at the outset contended that the issue involves interpretation of Notifications and hence, these are to be only heard before the Division Bench of CESTAT. 2. Per Contra, Sh. N.Anand, learned Advocate, points out that the issue pertains only to the post-importation procedure and nothing to do with the interpretation of any Notifications and as such, the Single Member Bench of the CESTAT has jurisdiction. He also draws attention to the Miscellaneous Order No.20284 in the appellant's case dated 03.09.2021 wherein, the Division Bench of this CESTAT has after examination of records, directed the Registry to list ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e above refund claims, which was seriously contested vide appellant's reply thereto, but however, the said claims of the appellant were rejected vide respective Orders-in-Original against which the appeals were filed before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority also having rejected the appeals of the assessee, the appellant has assailed the same in these appeals. 5. Heard Sh. N.Anand, learned Advocate for the appellant and Sh. P.Gopakumar, learned Authorized Representative for the Respondent, have gone through the documents placed on record as well as the decisions/orders relied upon during the course of arguments. 6. The import of duty-free raw materials was made with a purpose to manufacture and export the final p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....LT 5 (SC). * Saint Gobin Crystals & Detectors (I) Ltd. Vs CC, 2018 (364) ELT 105 (Tri. Bang.) * Macmillan India ltd. Vs CC, 2008 (223) ELT 449 (Tri. Bang.) * Symphony Services Corp India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC, 2009 (245) ELT 661 (Tri. Bang.) affirmed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court as reported in 2012 (275) ELT 369 (Kar.). * Sandoz Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, 2012 (278) ELT 259 (Tri. Mum.) 8. On the other hand, learned Authorized Representative supported the findings of the lower authorities. He also relied on an order of this very Bench in the case of Axa Business Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC, Bangalore, 2017 (10) TMI 763- CESTAT BANGALORE. In the said decision of Axa Business, the facts are slightly different inasmuch as there was transfer of ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der of the Assistant Registrar has not been given to the appellant and the observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant has not challenged the order dated 9-4-2009 is not sustainable because the order is not of 9-4-2009 it is only a letter written by the Range Officer to the appellant. Further I find that the refund claim has only been rejected on the ground that warehousing period has been expired whereas the fact of the matter is the Customs licence granted to the appellant had been renewed and the goods were still in the bonded warehouse. Further I find that the claim for refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 has not been considered at all since the impugned order gives finding beyond the scope of the proceedin....