SAMBHAV ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are filed against the Orders -in -appeal No. 03/10 and No. 05/10 both dated 22 -2 -2010. Since the issues involved in both these appeals are identical, they are being disposed off by a common order.

(2.) THE relevant facts that arise for consideration are that appellants herein filed refund claims on the ground that the first appellate authority had reduced the fine and penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority on a consignment of old and used photocopier machines imported. It is undisputed that the appellate authoritys orders of revision of redemption fine and penalty have attained finality. Consequent to such orders, the refund claims were filed by the assesses/appellants herein, the same were rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that original documents were not produced by the assessees and they are required for sanctioning the refund i.e. original documents like Bill of Entry and TR6 challans. Aggrieved by such a rejection of refund claims by the Adjudicating Authority, the appellants herein filed appeals before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned orders has held that the original documents are required for processing the refund claims and for this purpose he relied on Customs Refund Application (Form) Regulations, 1995 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue vide Notification No. 34/95 -Cus. (N.T.) dt. 26 -5 -1995 and rejected the appeals. Hence these appeals.

(3.) LD . Counsel submits that it is not in dispute that the assessees are eligible for the refund. It is his submission that non -production of original documents was for the reason that they were not required in a case of consequential relief. He would rely upon the judgment of the Honble High Court of Kerala in the case of Narayan Nambiar Meloths v. CC [2010 (251) E.L.T. 57 (Ker.)]. It is his submission that the judgment squarely covers the issue in favour of the assesses.