9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent. [Order per : Justice Ajit Bharihoke, President]. - This appeal is preferred by the department against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), dated 23-2-2012 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the department and confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner concerned sanctioning refund claim of the assessee amounting to Rs. 40 lakhs. 2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for dispos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t asked the respondent to work out differential duty payable on freight and insurance for the period from 1-1-1994 to 30-6-2000. The assessee worked out the differential duty to the extent of Rs. 3,62,94,447/- and deposited the same with the department. 3. Since the interest on late deposit was not paid, the department issued show cause notice to the assessee for recovery of interest amounti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the Tribunal has been accepted and not appealed against. 4. Consequent upon setting aside the impugned order confirming interest, the respondent filed application for refund of Rs. 40 lakhs which was pre-deposited under Section 35F of the Act. Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner allowed the application for refund and directed refund of Rs. 40 lakhs to the respondents. Feeling aggrieved, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view, the plea of the appellant is unfounded for the reason that in the instant case, it is undisputed that the goods in question were cleared at a lesser valuation and subsequently in view of the Board's circular, the respondent was persuaded to work out and pay the differential excise duty on freight and insurance charges which were not originally included in the valuation of the goods for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
