9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value furnished by the respondent herein. Further, he has also held that the order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has not been appealed against by Revenue and thus, has attained finality. Therefore, he held that as per the direction contained in the order dated 30.09.2013, the Department should have granted refund to the respondent. On going through the impugned order, the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and filed the Bills of Entry, declaring the price of such imported goods at 0.03 USD per stem. The assessing officer discarded the transaction value and enhanced the value to 0.07 USD. The respondent discharged the duty liability on the enhanced value. Against assessment made in the Bills of Entry, the respondent has filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was disposed of vide order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Feeling aggrieved with both the said adjudication orders, the respondent preferred appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), which were disposed of vide the impugned order dated 03.06.2016. Vide the impugned order the ld. Commissioner Appeals has allowed the appeals filed by the respondent with consequential relief. 3. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 4. We find that the ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
