2024 (4) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e original authority sanctioned a part of the refund claim. The claim of the appellant for refund of amounts with respect to two Bills of Entry dt. 29.03.2013 was rejected observing that though the appellant has produced invoices and Chartered Accountant certificate stating that the goods described in the invoices correlate with the goods imported, on perusal of the date of invoices as well as the date of Bill of Entry, it was noted that it is not possible that goods were sold on the same date. Aggrieved by the rejection of refund, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the orders. Hence these appeals. 2. The Learned Counsel, Ms. Rithika appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted by the Ld. C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing by the original authority vide OIO No.188/2014 dt 10.3.2014 to reject the refund claim is that the goods have been imported by Bill of Entry dt. 29.03.2013 and out of charge has been given on 30.03.2013. The invoices are also dated 30.03.2013. It is the case of the Department that the importer being at Hyderabad, it is impossible for the goods to travel to Hyderabad and then be delivered to the customer at Sivakasi on the same date itself. Thus, it is presumed by the department that the goods sold vide impugned invoice Nos.157 & 158/2013 are not the goods which have been imported by the appellant and it has suffered 4% Special Additional Duty. On perusal of the consignment notes placed in the appeal paper book, it is seen that the appel....