9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, except for the fact that if the formula of Gujarat Forest Department is adopted the quantum of refund payable would be less. In such a situation, it would be difficult to take a view that this will have a retrospective effect - there is absolutely no logic in applying this Public Notice retrospectively and in fact, the Public Notice itself has been issued to maintain uniformity and not to adopt a particular ratio or formula to ensure that it is correct - Decided against Revenue. - C/25975/2013-C/26024/2013 C/26606/2013-C/26610/2013 C/26648/2013-C/26676/2013 C/26730/2013-C/26766/2013 C/26776/2013-C/26790/2013 - FINAL ORDER No. 26167 -262302/2013 - Dated:- 13-8-2013 - SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, J. For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Nigam, AC, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es follow different practices, while calculating the volume of the log. While the Karnataka State Forest Department appears to be using 1 Hoppus Ton = 1.416 CMB, the permits issued by the Gujarat Forest Department for movement of imported logs indicate the formula is 1 Hoppus Ton = 1.8027 CBM. However, from the Customs point of view, the main factor to be taken into account while considering refund claims of Special Additional Duty of Customs is whether the importer has accounted for the entire volume of logs declared on the Bill of Entry and the documentary evidence for the sale of same on payment of VAT is produced while claiming refund of SAD. This is especially so when the importer sells round logs per se without any change in form. 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect. Since the Hon ble High Court of Kerala had directed the Department to prescribe a formula so that there can be uniformity and the Public Notice has been issued to ensure uniformity and not to clarify the correct ratio for the earlier period, I do not consider that there is anything wrong in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A). Accordingly, no justification has been made for grant of stay and therefore, the stay applications are rejected. 4. At this juncture, the learned AR submits that the circular in question issued by the Board had come up for consideration before the Hon ble High Court of Madras in Writ Petition (MD) No.8383 of 2012 and Hon ble High Court of Madras in its judgment dated 31.10.2012 has upheld the v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore the department should not have filed appeals at all. Instructions were issued by the Board in 2011 vide F. No.390/163/2010 dated 17.8.2011 and all these appeals have been filed subsequent to the circular and obviously the National Litigation Policy framed by the Board has been ignored by the field formations, which also is not proper. 6. Since the very same issue had come up before me on 30.7.2013 and at that time also instead of disposing of the stay applications, appeals themselves were disposed of since there was nothing left to be considered, I find appropriate that in these cases also the appeals themselves should be disposed of. Since I have already found that there is absolutely no merit in these appeals and there is nothi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
