9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (2) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Learned Representative of the Department had no objection to the delay being condoned. We condoned the delay and took the supplementary appeals on record. 2. Since common facts and issues are involved in the three appeals, they were clubbed together, heard together and hence this common order. 3. On hearing both sides and on careful consideration of the matter, we observed that the appellants are aggrieved because their three refund claims amounting to about Rs. 8.5 lakhs have been rejected by the lower authorities. The facts, in brief, are that the appellants imported 280 M.Ts of Caprolactum from M/s. DSM, Holland at the unit price of Dutch Guilders 7164.28 per M.T., as per the import invoice. The import invoice was accepted by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants requested for the revised invoice being accepted and consequential refund being granted to them. The authorities rejected their contention, inter alia, on the ground that there was independent evidence of M/s. State Trading Corporation of India s contracting for Caprolactum at about the time of import by the appellants at the unit price of $ 2675.00 per M.T. which worked out to more or less the same rate as stated in the appellants original import invoice. 4. Before us also, the appellants repeated the above contentions. It is difficult for us to believe that so many people in so many different organisations and on 3 separate occasions went on making the same mistake. But even assuming that the mistakes did happen and the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in view of the contract they were able to obtain from M/s. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., they agreed for diverting part of the material already contracted for with the Dutch Suppliers. He further stated that during January, February 1974, the booking price for Caprolactum was US $ 3000 and that since they were able to get the material at US $ 2200 through M/s. Nirlon Synthetic Fibres and Chemicals Ltd., they negotiated for the same. He, however, admitted that he was not in possession of any document exchanged between the appellant Company and M/s. Nirlon Fibres and Chemicals Ltd. to support his statement. He submitted that, at the material time, the State Trading Corporation was importing Caprolactum at US $ 2654.32 per Metric Tonne." 5. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants or by M/s. Nirlon or M/s. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. is of no consequence. 6. Since the appellants purchase price as per the original import invoice compared favourably with the normal ruling price in the course of international trade during January, 1974, we agree with the lower authorities that no refund is due to the appellants. In the result, we dismiss all the three appeals. 7. I have gone through the order of my Learned Brothers. Much as I wish to agree with the same I am unable to do so. 8. In my opinion the appellants have showed that the invoice issued to cover the goods was wrong. They showed that on Telex representation the suppliers refunded part of the value. The appellants also explained how they committed a seri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
