2023 (1) TMI 1194

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ting Authority, came to be upheld. 2. Brief facts, that are relevant and undisputed, inter alia are that the appellant imported Vitamin Premixes from its parent company, which were to be used as raw materials in the trial products such as biscuits, chocolates, etc.; that four Bills-of-Entry were filed for clearance; that the appellant also paid Basic Customs Duty (BCD) on provisional assessment basis since the transaction between the appellant and its parent company was a related party transaction; that the Department directed the production of clearance from the inspecting authority namely, the Food Safety and Standard Association of India (FSSAI); that the above inspecting authority found that the label on the goods indicated that the sh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d is: whether the rejection of refund claim of the appellant, as confirmed in the impugned Order-in-Appeal, is in order? 7. After going through the impugned Order-in-Appeal, I find that the First Appellate Authority has confirmed the rejection of refund only on the ground that the refund claim of the appellant was hit by the provisions of Section 26A (3) ibid. This finding is specifically challenged by the appellant since, according to it, the claim for refund was under Section 27 only. 8.1 The provisions of Section 26A and 27 of the Customs Act operate in different situations: Section 26A (1) specifically covers the refund of import duty in certain cases where the imported goods are found to be defective or not in conformity with the spe....