TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/23/2006/MASR - 701/2008 - Dated:- 11-7-2008 - Shri P. Karthikeyan, J. REPRESENTED BY : Dr. Nitish Birdi, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri J. Sankar Raman, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This is an appeal Filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. C.Cus.722/05 dt. 31-10-2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot regulated by provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act. He allowed the appeal filed by the party relying on a decision of this Tribunal in the case of Motor Industries Company v. CC, Chennai [2005 (188) E.L.T. 315 (Tri.-Bang)]. 3. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the EDD is not duty is disputed. The EDD was not a pre-deposit. Therefore, prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtra duty deposit. In other words, the amount paid by the appellants at the instance of the Customs authorities is duty deposit only. The Customs authorities had doubt about the value shown in the invoices and on investigations, it was found that the value shown was correct. In these circumstances, even without any letter or application from the appellants, the department is duty bound to refund t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
