2026 (4) TMI 1509

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd of Rs.3,05,543/ under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 towards refund of Customs Duty foregone on short-receipt of goods in course of importation from SEZ Unit i.e. M/s. Vedant Aluminium Ltd. The said application for refund was sent through courier on 14.01.2015 and the same was also acknowledged by the department i.e. the authorized Officers of Customs, Vedant Ltd. SEZ under letter dated 29.02.2016 whereupon some documents were sought for. In response, under letter dated 29.03.2016, such documents were again sent through speed post addressing the authorized Officers of Customs. (ii) Thereafter, vide Order-in-Original No. VL/SEZ/01/SO/16-17 dated 15.07.2016, the specified / authorized Officers of Customs, Vedant Ltd. SEZ a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he refund, recording that the application was submitted on 14.01.2015. It is not only the recording of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, but also a fact on-record as is evident from the communication dated 29.02.2016, which confirms that the appellant's application was submitted on 14.01.2015. (ii) The sole ground for denial of the refund as has been held by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is based on the fact that the refund claim did not carry any date. Evidently, through courier receipt appearing at page 7 of the appeal, it would be evident that the appellant sent a consignment on 14.01.2015 addressing Vedant Aluminium SEZ and it is not a mere co-incidence that the authorized Officer of Customs has referred to such date under h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant is entitled to such refund. The finding of the Ld. Appellate Authority even considering that the application was undated. The acknowledgement of the same was done by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority and such date cannot be ignored. Since the application was not returned and was ultimately processed, the refund application cannot be said to be incomplete and therefore, question of denial of such refund cannot arise. (v) The appellant is, therefore, entitled to such refund along with interest in terms of Section 27A and as a consequence thereof, the impugned Order-in-Appeal is required to be set-aside and quashed. Reliance is placed on (i) Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Ltd. -vs- Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata [2004....