9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortation was clearly without any basis - it was evident that the refund of excess amount of duty paid by the appellant was beyond the contracted price. Consequently, refund was rightly allowed by tribunal - 8 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 25-8-2008 - Badar Durrez Ahmed and Rajiv Shakdher, JJ. Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocate, for the Petitioner. [Judgment per: Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. (Oral)].- This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8531.10. As a result of this, the respondent was compelled to pay customs duty on the basis of the classification insisted upon by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the additional customs duty paid in view of this change in classification was Rs 4,43,496/-. Thereafter, the respondent challenged the said classification by the Assessing Officer and the respondent's challenge was ultimately found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent had collected only the contracted amount as evident from the ledger, the invoice and the contract. Consequently, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the total amount received by the respondent also included the amount of customs duty on the goods at the time of importation was clearly without any basis. The Tribunal was of the view th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bill of entry is dated 29.07.1999. The respondent had claimed classification under Customs Tariff Heading 8530.80 and if that had been accepted by the Assessing Officer, the duty payable by the respondent would have been Rs.15,82,705/-. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the classification and compelled the respondent to classify the said imported CCTV systems under the Customs Tariff Head ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
