Direction by UP Govt. to Display Name of Shop Owners During Kanwar Yatra Challenged in SC  ||  Del. HC: DDA Criticized for Not Taking Measures for Beautification of District Park  ||  Order Holding that Watching Child Porn Isn’t an Offence, Recalled by Karnataka HC  ||  Uttarakhand HC: Can’t Hold Husband Guilty for Unnatural Sex Under Section 377 of IPC  ||  Cal. HC: Applications Related to ICA Can be Entertained by Single Judge of Commercial Division  ||  Bom. HC: Stock Broker Can’t be Booked for Duping Shareholders Only for Forwarding Whatsapp Messages  ||  Del. HC: PIL Seeking Removal of Videos of Women and Minor on YouTube, Refused  ||  Del. HC: PIL Seeking Removal of Videos of Women and Minor on YouTube, Refused  ||  Del. HC: Delhi Govt. Directed to Implement Hybrid Courts Project on Priority Basis  ||  SC: Dispute regarding Discharge of Contract is Arbitrable as per Arbitration Agreement    

Mohammad Shaheed v. The Commissioner of Customs - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (27 Jun 2017)

Refund shall be effected on production of necessary documents of evidences



Present appeal is against impugned order dated 11.1.2016 passed by Commissioner of Customs (A) whereby Commissioner (A) set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed appeal of Appellant on condition that, refund is to be granted to Appellant only on production of necessary documents of evidences as demanded by original authority. Appellant submitted that, impugned order is not sustainable in law as same has been passed by ignoring specific direction of High Court of Kerala.

Original authority has rejected refund claim on ground which is not sustainable in law. Once High Court of Kerala in its order dated 12th November, 2014 had specifically given direction that, on producing identity and account details refund shall be effected to Petitioner within a period of four weeks and after judgment of Kerala High Court, Appellant has produced certificate obtained from Padi Village Office, Government of Kerala and also an affidavit clarifying that, Mohammad Shaheed, Sahid M and Sahid Mohammad are one and same person. Moreover, his identity was never in dispute from very beginning even during investigation. His statement was recorded and he is appearing before officers of custom and this reason has been coined by original authority only for purpose of denial of rightful claim of refund.

Now since, Appellant has clarified about his identity also, therefore there is no reason left for Respondent to deny refund claim. Therefore, in view discussions and examination of various orders passed by Revenue authorities as well as judgments of High Court of Kerala, Appellants are entitled for refund and therefore, Appeal of appellant allowed by setting aside impugned order. Appellants are entitled for interest as per law.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved