NCLAT: Consideration of Debt Restructuring by Lenders Doesn’t Bar Member from Initiating Proceedings  ||  Delhi High Court: In Matters of Medical Evaluation, Courts Should Exercise Restraint  ||  Delhi HC: Any Person in India Has Right to Legally Import Goods from Abroad and Sell the Same  ||  Delhi HC: Waiver to Section 12(5) of Arbitration Act to be Given Once Tribunal is Constituted  ||  Supreme Court Has Asked States to Regularise Existing Court Managers  ||  SC: Union & States to Create Special POSCO Courts on Top Priority  ||  SC Upholds Authority of CERC to Award Compensation for Delays  ||  SC: Arbitral Tribunal Has Discretion to Include in Sum Awarded, Interest at Rate as it Deems Reasonab  ||  SC: Cannot Use Article 142 to Frame Guidelines on Judicial Recusal  ||  SC: Satisfaction Recorder in One EP Won’t Affect Subsequent EPs for Future Breaches    

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

MANU/CB/0099/2017

Customs

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.

Tags : REFUND   ELIGIBILITY   DOCUMENT   PRODUCTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved