9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . This appeal under Section 130 A of the Customs Act, 1962 is preferred by the Commissioner of Customs against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Principal Bench), New Delhi on 31.08.2007 in Customs Appeal 325/2007-SM (BR). 2. The respondent had entered into a contract on 26.04.1999 with Air Headquarters, Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenge was ultimately found to be successful. The Department agreed with the respondent that the classification for the imported CCTV systems had been rightly done by the respondent under the Heading 8530.80. 3. In view of the above, the respondent, being entitled to a refund, filed a refund application for the said excess duty paid to the extent of Rs 4,43,496/-. The refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arly without any basis. The Tribunal was of the view that it was evident that the refund of excess amount of duty paid by the appellant was beyond the contracted price. Consequently, it was directed that the respondent be allowed the consequential relief and the refund be made to it. 5. We are of the view that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with for more t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ify the said imported CCTV systems under the Customs Tariff Heading 8531.10, as a result of which the respondent was compelled to pay customs duty of Rs 20,26,201/-. The excess duty was to the extent of Rs 4,43,496/-. If the respondent had passed on the incidence of this excess duty, then the contracted price ought to have been increased by this figure. But, we find that the contracted price remai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
