9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 955X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner comes to ₹ 47,57,416/- - HELD THAT:- In view of the aforesaid Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 23.10.2013, a fresh sample drawn by the respondent is to be re-tested. Thus, fresh Order-in-Original will have to be passed by the respondent and therefore till then no refund can be granted to this petitioner. As the respondent has yet to pass an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is about the classification of the goods. The petitioner had deposited a duty of ₹ 5,34,521.13 on the basis of the valuation of ₹ 27,22,160/- whereas as per respondent the duty leviable on this petitioner comes to ₹ 47,57,416/-. The calculation details have been mentioned by the respondent in the Order in Original dated 28.12.2012 (annexure A-3 to the memo of this petition) and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court, yet the appellant admittedly failed to avail such opportunity. Hence, it cannot be argued that principles of natural justice were violated. No doubt, absence of Shri Kapil Dev Aggarwal during investigations would not be a limiting factor for classification; however, the appellant on the other hand did not submit their contentions before the Learned Adjudicating Authority appropriately ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordingly. The original authorities are directed to look into the matter afresh as per results of the re-test. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off with due directions. 3. In view of the aforesaid Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 23.10.2013, a fresh sample drawn by the respondent is to be re-tested. Thus, fresh Order-in-Original will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
