TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the refund of Rs. 1,04,111/- which was rejected by the Adjudication Authority on the ground that said amount related to quantity of 56.66 CBM sold after processing - appellant is entitled for the refund of Rs.1,04,111/- after deducting Rs.8,329/- against unsold goods with interest in accordance with law. Appeal allowed in part. - MR. P.A. AUGUSTIAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Abhishek Misra, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K. Vishwanath, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Appellant is a proprietary concern doing import supply of timber logs. As part of their routine business, they have imported teakwood and filed a Bill of Entry dated 29.07.2010. At the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roducts. If the amount paid by the appellant towards local tax is not compensated by allowing refund of special additional duty paid by the appellant at the time of import, object of said notification will be vitiated. The learned council also drew our attention to large number of judgment/final orders issued by the Appellate Forums, Hon ble High Court of Gujarat and Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Bangalore Wood Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment), Hassan Ors. dated 15.07.1993. The learned council further submitted that as per the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the matter of Commissioner, Customs and Others versus Variety Lumbers Private Limited and others reported in (2018) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant is not eligible for refund. Regarding claim of refund on goods which is not sold, the learned counsel fairly admits that as stated in Para 10 of the Order-In-Original, they were holding quantity of 4.53 cubic meter of goods at the time of filing the refund application. The amount of special additional duty involved against the said goods is Rs. 8,329/- and the appellant is not pressing for refund of the said amount. 3. The learned D.R. appearing on the behalf of the respondent submitted that the timber logs imported by the appellant was subject to some process and due to that reason, the goods are not sold as imported and not eligible for the benefit of notification. 4. We have gone through the facts and submissions made by both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
