Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 03, 1996

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/9968

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/9968
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Sep 03, 1996
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bajaj Auto Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Legal References

Reported In: (1996)(88)ELT763Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....evidence to show that the duplicate copy of bill of entry was surrendered by them to the assistant collector on 3-4-1989 against the acknowledgement, which they produced before the said authority and hence, it was not possible for them to re-surrender the same before the assistant collector (refund).there being a specific observation made in the order of the collector (appeals), the assistant collector sanctioning refund claim pursuant to the said order passed by the collector (appeals), ought not to have demanded the duplicate copy of the bill of entry and in any case, he could not have rejected the refund claim when the same was sanctioned by the collector (appeals) by passing a specific order in this regard.his function was only to sanction the refund claim pursuant to the order passed by the collector (appeals). having not done so, he has on the contrary, rejected the refund claim which act appears to be beyond the powers invested in him. in any case, there being evidence available on record that the duplicate copy was surrendered under acknowledgement before the same department, rejection of the refund claim on this count cannot be sustained and is, therefore, set aside. the appeal is allowed. the refund shall be sanctioned without raising the objection as to non-production of duplicate copy of the bill of entry. however, it will be open to the department to demand such safeguards in the nature of execution of a bond, as they may deem necessary to avoid any possibility of filing double claim on such documents.

Full Judgment

1. The matter was listed for admission. However, considering the issue involved, admitting the appeal, the same is taken up for decision on merits.

2. Heard Shri K.B. Kotian, Manager of the appellants and Shri K.M.Mondal, the ld. SDR for the Respondent.

3. The appellants filed a claim for refund of Rs. 22,403/-. The same was initially rejected by the Assistant Collector. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the same vide his order dated 19-5-1991. The claim was filed on the ground that the goods were lost and duty paid was refundable. Pursuant to the order of the Collector (Appeals), where refund was claimed, the same was rejected on the ground that the duplicate copy of the Bill of Entry was not submitted. The appellants claimed that they had already submitted the duplicate Bill of Entry at the time of claiming refund which was ultimately sanctioned by the Collector (Appeals). The Assistant Collector (Refund) however, rejected the same. In the appeal before the Collector (Appeals), the appeal has been rejected on the same ground.

4. Going by the earlier order of the Collector (Appeals) No. 195/91, it is clear that the appellants had produced evidence to show that the duplicate copy of Bill of Entry was surrendered by them to the Assistant Collector on 3-4-1989 against the acknowledgement, which they produced before the said authority and hence, it was not possible for them to re-surrender the same before the Assistant Collector (Refund).

There being a specific observation made in the order of the Collector (Appeals), the Assistant Collector sanctioning refund claim pursuant to the said order passed by the Collector (Appeals), ought not to have demanded the duplicate copy of the Bill of Entry and in any case, he could not have rejected the refund claim when the same was sanctioned by the Collector (Appeals) by passing a specific order in this regard.

His function was only to sanction the refund claim pursuant to the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). Having not done so, he has on the contrary, rejected the refund claim which act appears to be beyond the powers invested in him. In any case, there being evidence available on record that the duplicate copy was surrendered under acknowledgement before the same department, rejection of the refund claim on this count cannot be sustained and is, therefore, set aside. The appeal is allowed. The refund shall be sanctioned without raising the objection as to non-production of duplicate copy of the Bill of Entry. However, it will be open to the department to demand such safeguards in the nature of execution of a bond, as they may deem necessary to avoid any possibility of filing double claim on such documents.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs Same Subject Service Tax