TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 830
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r No.42290/2016. 2.The above appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether the Single Member of the Tribunal was justified in hearing the matter relating to the claim of exemption from the Special Additional Duty of Customs under Notification No.102/2007-Cus? (ii) Whether the Tribunal, in the face of documentary evidence produced by the appellant, was correct in setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority, holding that there was no correction between the imports and subsequent sales? (iii) Whether the Tribunal failed to note that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) cannot go into the aspect of correction of 'goods imported' versus 'goods sold in India' to arrive at a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he adjudicating authority accepted the claim for refund partially, and by Order-in-Original dated 24.11.2014, sanctioned a sum of Rs. 10,78,622/- as refund and rejected the claim for refund to the tune of Rs. 5,72,251/- on the ground that the product sold by the appellant did not match with the product imported by the appellant. 6.The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), who by order dated 16.03.2015 allowed the appeal having found that the description of the imported goods in the bill of entry and in the invoices are the same, except that the appellant has used the generic expression. The respondent-Revenue filed appeal to the Tribunal and the Tribunal after noting the conditions in the notification, hel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claimed; (iii) documents evidencing payment of appropriate sales tax or value added tax, as the case may be, by the importer, on sale of such imported goods. The adjudicating authority appears to have done a thorough scrutiny of the documents and granted refund for substantial portion of the claim. In respect of the remaining portion, the only reason for rejection is that the appellant has not adopted the same code while describing the product in their sale invoices. The explanation offered by the appellant/importer is that the numbers which followed the letters HDPE/LDPE/LLDPE are relevant only for person who is importing goods from the foreign country on orders being placed by the appellant and is of no consequence on the sale while sell....