TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TAT has accepted the appeal of the assessee and allowed the refund. HC has confirmed the order of the tribunal as there is sufficient ground to prove that the burden of duty has not been passed. - CUS. A. C. 8/2008 - - - Dated:- 25-8-2008 - Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Ms Sonia Mathur CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON?BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s ought to be classified under the Customs Tariff Heading 8531.10. As a result of this, the respondent was compelled to pay customs duty on the basis of the classification insisted upon by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the additional customs duty paid in view of this change in classification was Rs. 4,43,496/-. Thereafter, the respondent challenged the said classification by the Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner (Appeals) had not disputed the fact that the respondent had collected only the contracted amount as evident from the ledger, the invoice and the contract. Consequently, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the total amount received by the respondent also included the amount of customs duty on the goods at the time of importation was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was made subsequently as is evident from the fact that the bill of entry is dated 29.07.1999. The respondent had claimed classification under Customs Tariff Heading 8530.80 and if that had been accepted by the Assessing Officer, the duty payable by the respondent would have been Rs 15,82,705/-. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the classification and compelled the respondent to classify t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
