Appellate relief and duty abatement in valuation upheld after refund rejection was found impermissible.

A subordinate authority could not refuse a refund claim after an appellate order had already set aside the assessment and directed consequential relief; disregarding that direction was improper and illegal. On the valuation issue, where duty changed from specific to ad valorem and the applicable wholesale price for pre-1-3-1969 tenders continued thereafter, the duty element embedded in that price had to be abated in computing assessable value. The claim was therefore treated as valid and relief was granted to the petitioners.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim and consequential relief following the appellate order were wrongly rejected, and whether the petitioners were entitled to abatement of duty while computing the assessable value after the change from specific duty to ad valorem duty.

Analysis: The appellate authority had already set aside the original assessment with a direction to grant consequential relief, and the subordinate authority had no jurisdiction to disregard that direction and reject the refund claim again on different grounds. The refusal to implement the appellate order was improper and illegal. On the merits, the duty structure had changed from specific to ad valorem, and the wholesale price applicable to pre-1-3-1969 tenders continued after that date; in such circumstances, the duty element embedded in that price had to be abated while determining the assessable value.

Conclusion: The claim was held to be valid, and the revision application was allowed in favour of the petitioners.

---