ORDER
V.K. Jain, Member (T)
1. The instant appeal has been filed by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited against the Order-in-Appeal No. Cal-Cus-1063/94 dated 20-12-1994 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Kolkata.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order rejected the appeal as it is found that the refund claim filed by the Appellant for Rs. 8,85,758/- is not admissible.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant imported two consignments of machinery spare parts. In both the consignments of shortage/short shipment were detected at the Appellant’s premises after clearance from the Customs. At the time of clearance, the shortages were not detected. The above bills of entries were filed on 27-3-1991 and 11-4-1991 respectively. The appellant did not inform the Customs about the short shipment. The appellant got replacement from the supplier for both the consignments and claimed it was a free replacement. Thereafter the appellant lodged a claim for refund of duty as for the same items duty was paid twice. The claim of refund was rejected by the lower authority which on Appeal was remanded by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the lower authority. Lower Authority again rejected the claim and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim of the Appellant vide its order referred to above.
4. I have heard Shri B.J. Mookherjee, Advocate for the Appellant and Shri N.K. Mishra, ld. JDR for the Revenue.
5. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as follows while rejecting the claim of the appellant: –
(a) Shortages are seen to have been detected subsequent to clearance of the goods.
(b) Secondly instead of claiming refund against those Bills of Entries under which shortages were noticed. The appellants has claimed refund against Bills of Entries dated 6-4-1992 under which the short receipted materials were subsequently receipted by the Appellants as per their own admission.
6. On both counts their claim is not admissible.
7. I have gone through the case records and submissions made by the both sides. I find there is a force in the contention of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the shortages have been detected subsequent to the clearance of the goods and instead of claiming the refund under those Bills of Entries where shortages were noticed, the appellants’ claimed refund against the Bills of Entries under which no short-receipted materials were receipted. At no stage the Appellants informed the Customs Department about the alleged shortages in the two Bills of Entries referred to above. I find force in. the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and I reject the appeal.