9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the second respondent is directed to re-consider the matter - 4809 of 2011(A) - - - Dated:- 22-3-2011 - P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri T.M. Abdul Latheef, for the Petitioner. Shri Tojan J. Vathikulam, SC, C.B. Excise, for the Respondent. [Judgment]. The petitioner has approached this Court in the second round of litigation. Pursuant to the verdict in W.P. (C) No. 33566 of 2009 (Ext. P2), Ext.P7 order was passed by the Commissioner, which is under challenge herein contending that, it is per se wrong and illegal. 2. In so far as the rate of conversion adopted for measurement of timber imported from elsewhere was following the formula adopted in European, African and Malasian countries, i.e. 1 Hoppuston ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al measurement the volume found in Cubic Meter is less than the volume shown in the commercial Invoice i.e., 97.770M3 and 97.663 M3 respectively. From the above it is evident that there is no suppression of turnover of imported timber round logs. If the dealer had applied the conversion rate one HT is equivalent to 1.802M3 the volume taken for 50 logs would have been 125.682M3. But in actual measurement it is nearly 98.760M3 shown in the Commercial Invoice. From the above I am of the view that there is no attempt on the part of the dealer to suppress the Turnover as alleged. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext. PI has become final, based on which all the penalty proceedings have been dropped. In the course of events, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... site www.wikipedia.org). However, it is stated in paragraph 8 that the request made by the petitioner for refund, by adopting conversion formula of 1 Hoppuston = 1.416M3 could not be considered by the Dy. Commissioner for the fact that he had become functus officio by that time and hence the matter was placed before the second respondent and was waiting a reply. It is contended by the petitioner that the stand taken by the concerned respondent is not liable to be held as correct or proper in view of the course that is being pursued by the very same Department in respect of the import through other Ports, as borne out from the proceedings in Ext. P3 where the conversion formula adopted by the Department was 1 Hoppuston = 1.416M3 6. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
