2025 (7) TMI 360

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d to be recovered. On going through the documents, being of the view that the application was to be allowed in the interest of justice, the same was accordingly allowed, and in as much as the issue involved is in a short compass, with the consent of both parties, the appeal was taken up for final hearing. 2. Brief facts are that M/s Kaveri Silks & Jute Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, the appellant herein, has preferred this appeal taking exception to the impugned Order in Appeal C.Cus No.1514/2014 dated 21.08.2014, to the extent the Appellate Authority had partially allowed the appeal filed by the Department and had set aside the portion of the order sanctioning anti-dumping duty of Rs.2,23,021/- to the appellant and had ordered its recovery. The ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red grade, merited a retest. The matter was therefore remanded to be adjudicated on the basis of the outcome of the retest. Upon such retest the grade of the goods was confirmed to be of Grade 3A. The Lower Authority, then vide its Order in Original No.7677/08 dated 24.04.2008 found that the retesting of the remnant samples by CSTRI, Bangalore revealed the grade of the imported mulberry silk to be of 3A Grade on which Anti- Dumping Duty is not applicable and ordered that the results of the CSTRI, Bangalore in respect of the mulberry raw silk imported by the appellant vide bill of entry no.882938 dated 28.09.2005 be accepted and that the appellant would be eligible for all consequential benefits. 5. Pursuant to the refund claim preferred by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the appellant submitted that the impugned order in appeal was passed ex-parte, and while indicating that personal hearing was offered on 14.12.2012, 03.01.2013 and 27.06.2013, the appellant authority had however, passed the order only much later, after more than a year, on 21.08.2014. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the order has been passed on the basis of incorrect appreciation of facts. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel that the finding that the appellant has filed the refund claim on 10.02.2010 is contrary to the documentary evidence that had been brought on record and that the refund claim was in fact filed on 28.06.2008, that is only two months after the Order in Original No.7677/08 dated 24.04.2008. That these facts, though....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and that the importer would be eligible for all consequential benefits, was accepted by the Commissioner on 07.08.2008. The said refund order also notes that the same was intimated to refund section vide Note dated 26.03.2010 from the Revenue Cell, Commissioner Customs, Chennai. The refund order also records that the appellant had produced a Chartered Accountant Certificate dated 21.08.2009 stating that the Anti-Dumping Duty that has been claimed as refund was paid in the accounting year 2006-07 and the appellant has not been passed it on to customers. 10. Ms. Rajni Menon, Ld. AR appeared for the Respondent and reiterated the findings in the impugned order in appeal. 11. Heard both sides and carefully perused the appeal records. 12. It ....