TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BANGALORE] decided matter in favour of assesse – Moreover assesse produced copy of letter of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Protection) which also shows that formula followed by appellants is correct – In view of above observations appeals have to be allowed with consequential relief to appellants – Decided in favour of assesse. - Appeal(s) Involved: C/1574/2011-SM, - Final Order Nos. 20671-20711 / 2015 - Dated:- 11-3-2015 - SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, J. For The Appellant : Mr. M. Balagopal, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. N. Jagdish, Mr. Pakshi Rajan Mr. Mohd Yusuf, AR Per : B.S.V. MURTHY C/1575/2011-SM, C/1576/2011-SM, C/1577/2011-SM, C/1578/2011-SM, C/1579/2011-SM, C/1580/2011-SM, C/1585/2011-SM, C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 1.8027 cubic meter and therefore the refund claim was reduced in the proportion of 1.416:1.8027. 3. The very same issue had already come up before this Tribunal and this Tribunal had passed a detailed order on this issue in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore Vs. Royal Timbers [2014 (313) E.L.T. 305 (Tri.-Bang.)]. There is a slight difference between the facts in the case of Royal Timbers and the case of present cases. In the case of Royal Timbers, the refund was sanctioned and subsequently demand was raised considering that the refund had been erroneously sanctioned. In these cases while sanctioning the refund itself reduced amount has been sanctioned. 4. The issue is not only be the subject matter of dispute which was c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants is correct. 6. In addition the learned counsel also submitted copies of orders-in-appeal No. 158-235 dated 02.07.2014 in case of J J Timbers and 16 others, orders-in-appeal No. 245-254 dated 16.07.2014 in the case of M/s. Hillwood Timbers and 2 others, orders-in-appeal Nos. 265-272 dated 18.07.2014 in the case of M/s. J J Timbers and 4 others. In all the orders-in-appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has ruled in favour of the importers. The Commissioner (Appeals) who passed the order is Commissioner (Appeals), Cochin. He has also cited the decision of Commissioner (Appeals) Bangalore while passing the order. 7. The above observations would show that the lower authorities at the level of Commissioner (Appeals) in Karnataka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
