9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held that:- Once such proposition is accepted there arises a refund of 1,66,990/- which was paid in cash as part of 6,27,213/- earlier paid towards duty liability. At this juncture, appellant says that there is no formula in the Customs law to reduce the refund by any proportion, adjusting duty liability arbitrarily, a part form DEPB scrips and part from cash. He is correct in his statement for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty liability of ₹ 6.27,213/-was discharge by cash. The enchanced value was in appeal before the appellate authority below. He remanded the matter to Adjudicating Authority with the direction to pass a speaking order for resolution of the dispute. 2. Learned Counsel says that in the remand proceeding, learned Adjudicating Authority accepted the declared value and ultimate duty liability of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant was revised to ₹ 1,66,990/-. But that has been denied by Revenue. 3. On the other hand, Revenues contention is that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly passed the order denying the refund of ₹ 5,86,485/- as stated in his order, since the appellant was only entitled to refund of ₹ 40,728/- in view of the detailed discussion made in the Adjudication order. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trarily, a part form DEPB scrips and part from cash. He is correct in his statement for the reason that there is no law in that regard. Therefore, appellant is entitled to refund of ₹ 1,66,990/-. 6. Learned Adjudicating Authority shall verify the relevant particulars of the amount paid and subject to the provisions of law, the refund shall be granted. If there is any interest payable that s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
