S.S. Garg ORDER
S.S. Garg, Member (J)
1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 11.1.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal of the appellant on the condition that refund is to be granted to the appellant only on production of necessary documents of evidences as demanded by the original authority.
2. Briefly the facts of the present case are M/s. Cargo care International CHA had filed B/E No. 173322/02.02.2006 on behalf of Mohammad Shaheed, 4, Makaliamman Koil Street, Egmore, Chennai- 600 057, Passport No. A2369585, who had imported one unit of 'Toyota Soarer' Car which was adjudicated vide Order (Original) No. 51/2006 dated 07.08.2006 and on account of mis-declaration the value of vehicle was re-determined as Rs. 11,22,610/- and a RF of Rs. 3,30,000/- and a Penalty of Rs. 1,70,000/- was imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order No. 478/2007 dated 24.09.2007 ordered that the declared value be accepted and reduced the RF to Rs. 1,00,000/- and penalty to Rs. 50,000/- and also allowed the Plea for quashing the "No Sale Condition' imposed by the Original Authority. Thereafter, the appellant Shri Mohammad Shaheed, Periyadekka House, Mulleriya, Kasargode- 671543 had filed a refund application on 31.10.2007 for an amount of Rs. 11,55,253/- on account of difference in Duty, Redemption Fine and Penalty in pursuance of the aforesaid Order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). A deficiency memo was issued to the Appellant as it was noticed that the originals of B/E and TR6 Challan evidencing payment of duty, fine and penalty were not furnished as stipulated under Sections 27, 28C and 28D of the Customs Act 1962 read with Customs Refund Application (Forms) Regulation 1995. The requirement of documents was challenged by the Appellant in the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala which directed the department to dispose of the refund claim of the Appellant after affording him opportunity for personal hearing. The Appellant preferred an Appeal against the High Court Order vide W.A. No. 485/2010. The Refund Claim of the appellant was rejected by the Original Authority vide Order No. 86/10 dated 11.05.2010 as he failed to furnish the documents demanded by the Department. The appellant again filed an appeal against this order vide Order (Appeal) No. 67/2013 dated 19.09.2013 wherein it was ordered by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) that refund may be granted on production of the necessary documents/evidence in support of his claim as envisaged under Section 27 of the Customs Act 1962. On basis of this order, the appellant submitted a letter dated 7.01.2014 for refund along with Self attested copy of the TR6 Challan and Bill of Entry. The department issued a letter dated 27.03.2014 to produce the documentary evidence substantiating his claim that the original B/E and TR6 Challan were submitted before the RTO authorities. Meanwhile the High Court of Kerala dismissed the Writ Appeal No. 485/2010 filed by the Appellant. The Appellant filed a Writ Petition No. 6477/2014 wherein the Department was directed to allow the Refund claim of the appellant after verifying the genuineness of the documents produced by the Appellant. The Original Authority rejected the Refund claim of the Appellant vide Order No. 1041/2014 dated 19.12.2014 for the reason that he could not furnish the required evidence. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) set aside the Order-in-original and allowed the appeal subject to furnishing of necessary documents. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has filed this present appeal.
3. Heard both the parties and perused t........