2016 (8) TMI 1325

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . ORDER In this case the appellant had filed the application before the Customs Authorities on 17-1-2011, claiming refund of Special Additional Duty of Rs. 2,14,928/- under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007 in respect of the goods imported under Bill of Entry No. 2035752, dated 5-4-2010. The refund claim was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority mainly on the ground that the descr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oice was issued in conformity with the description of goods mentioned in the purchase order. It is the submission of the appellant since the thickness of the 3 glasses indicated in the tax invoices is 17.52 mm, there is no mismatch in the description of the goods indicated in the Bill of Entry and in the tax invoices issued by the appellant. With regard to the date of issuance of the commercial in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... orted by the appellant were in fact sold to the domestic buyer by mentioning different thickness of the glass. On addition of 3 type of description mentioned in the tax invoice, the resultant thickness of 17.52 MM is matching with the goods imported vis-à-vis the goods sold in the domestic market. Thus, in my view, there is no mismatch between the goods imported and sold in the domestic mar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X