9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal is settled by this Tribunal also in the matter of M/S ARAVIND TRADERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS-COCHIN-CUS [ 2021 (7) TMI 100 - CESTAT BANGALORE ]. The appellant is entitled for the refund of Rs. 2,17,556/- rejected by Adjudication Authority on the ground that said amount related to quantity of 111.54 CBM sold after processing. Thus appellant is entitled for the refund of Rs. 2,17,556/- with interest in accordance with law. Appeal allowed in part. - HON'BLE MR. P. A. AUGUSTIAN , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON'BLE MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Abhishek Misra , Advocate for the Appellant Shri K. Vishwanath , Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER : P. A. AUGUSTIAN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the special additional duty was introduced with effect from 02.06.1998 in order to introduce a level playing field for domestic industry and to neutralise the local tax imposed on domestic products. If the amount paid by the appellant towards local tax is not compensated by allowing refund of special additional duty paid by the appellant at the time of import, object of said notification will be vitiated. The learned council also draw our attention to large number of judgment/final orders issued by the Appellate Forum and Hon ble High Court of Gujarat and Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Bangalore Wood Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment), Hassan Ors. dated 15.07.1993. The learned council fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ject the refund claim, respondent has drawn a conclusion from board circular and held that if goods are not sold in the form in which they were imported, it amount to change of classification and appellant is not eligible for refund. Regarding claim of refund on goods which is not sold, the learned counsel fairly admits that as stated in Para 10 of the Order-In-Original, they were holding quantity of 23.36 cubic meter of goods at the time of filing the refund application and the amount of special additional duty involved in above case is Rs. 45, 563/- and the appellant is not pressing for refund of the said amount. 3. The learned D.R. appearing on the behalf of the respondent submitted that the timber logs imported by the appellant was s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
