TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 481
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner (Appeals) is assailed before this forum. 2. Fact of the case would go to so that Appellant filed Bill of Entry No. 4148551 at the JNCH seeking clearance of goods on 20.07.2019 and paid the required Customs duty through Union Bank of India vide transaction ID No. 34646922 on dated 21.07.2019. As no challan was generated in the ICEGATE Appellant had to pay again Rs.9,67,564/- that includes one day interest of Rs.307/- for such clearance of goods. For the first payment, Appellant filed a refund application on dated 31.08.2019 seeking refund of Rs.9,67,167/- being paid twice and submitted bank certificate alongwith other documentary proof to establish such double payment but refund was rejected to the Appellant vide Order-in-Original No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating Authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals) have rejected the appeal on the ground that Appellant failed to submit the required documents which they specified as "clear self-attested photocopies of both the challans" for verification of Customs duty payment but when for the first payment no challan was generated, it was practically impossible for the Appellant to provide such a document, which as per para 5(b) of the said Public Notice No. 62/2012, should have been made available by the appropriate/proper officer regarding the payment made and corresponding acceptance/rejection status in the ICES system, which verification could have been done at the PAO/e-PAO office. In submitting complete bank statement for 4 months from the date of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Public Notice and the orders passed by the authorities below. There is no dispute concerning eligibility of the Appellant to get refund of one of such double payments made towards payment of Customs duty against one bill of entry but the issue remained disputed because of the fact that Appellant could not produce both the challans against such payment. It is surprising to see that when the entire claim of the Appellant was that the challan could not be generated against the first payment made on dated 21.07.2019, it would put him in an improbable situation if Appellant would be asked to produce such challan so as to establish its claim for refunds. Going by such Public Notice No. 62/2012 JNCH as contended in para 4 Appellant-Importer was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 22.07.2019 vide bank transaction no. 34646922. (viii) Invoice and Packing list." 6. This been the fact on record, issuing a deficiency memo to the Appellant that E-payment receipt of the said TR-6 challan for Rs.9,67,167/- dated 21.07.2009 was wanting and subsequently rejecting the refund on that ground of an improbable compliance of the said demand for production of challan copy was quite improper since there was failure on the part of the Department's ICEGATE system that was meant to record payment and generate challan and on that score the Appellant could not be made to suffer. I am, therefore, of the considered view that when all necessary requirements were being duly complied by the Appellant that is in conformity to the ....