2015 (4) TMI 642

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . ORDER S.J. Vazifdar, Acting Chief Justice (Oral): CM-20526-CII-2014: For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. CUSAP No.40 of 2014: This is an appeal against the order of the CESTAT setting aside the orders of the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority. The CESTAT held that the respon .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the date of Proforma Invoice and its remittance? iv) Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the Respondent is legally entitled to the benefit of Provisions of Paragraph 1.5 of Chapter 1A of Import-Export Policy 2004-09? v) Whether the Tribunal is right in applying the ratio of decided cases viz. Matraco (India) Ltd. vs. UOI & Viraj Impex Ltd. vs. CCE , Mumbai wherein the contract was mad .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... goods. In fact, due to a short supply, the supplier had refunded an amount of $4921. The Tribunal's conclusion that the facts establish the formation of a contract between the parties on or before 30.03.2006 is justified and in any event cannot be said to be absurd or perverse. In fact, the finding appears to be correct. The appeal does not raise a substantial question of law. 4. The appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X