TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1357
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s countries, exported 49500 MT of 'calibrated iron ore lumps in bulk' vide Shipping Bill dated 6.8.2008. Statedly, as per the practice, the export duty and cesses were calculated by taking the FOB value declared by the exporter as the cum-duty value and working backwards from the FOB value. Based on the above, the exporter had paid export duty with cess of Rs.2,99,51,460/-. Again the exporter had paid export duty of Rs.44,85,294/- being the differential duty as per FOB value on 4.8.2007. He has subsequently sought refund of the excess export duty of Rs.44,85,294/. After due process, the learned Original Authority observed that the refund claim was filed on 16.2.2009 which is beyond six months from the date of payment of duty and rejected th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar dated 10.11.2008 was issued clarifying that the new policy of valuation of the export of iron ore shall come into effect only from 01.01.2009 only. The Ld. Counsel stated that since the circular clarified the issue in their favour they filed a refund claim for the cash refund of the additional export duty paid by them namely Rs. 44, 85, 294/- in terms of Sec. 27 of the Customs Act on 27.01.2009 which was duly acknowledged by the department on 16.02.2009. As nothing was heard in the matter, they moved an application under the RTI Act and were informed that their refund fine is mis-placed and not traceable. The appellant on being asked to provide the copies of the documents involved also provided the documents to the refund sanctioning aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Counsel prayed that their appeal be allowed with consequential benefits and render justice 3.2 The Ld. AR has stated that as per the Tribunal Judgment in Sopariwala Exports Vs C.C. Kandala, [2017 (4) TMI 580 - CESTAST AHMEDABAD] a refund claim cannot be filed without challenging the assessed Bill of Entry. In Prince Alloys Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs, Cochin [2016 (11) TMI 1268 - CESTAT BASNGALORE], it was held that any refund application filed beyond the time limit specified under section 11B was time barred. She hence prayed that the appeal may be rejected. 4. Heard the rival parties and carefully perused the Appeal Memorandum and connected papers. I find that the Commissioner Appeals in the impugned order has held that the amo....