Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that rejected the refund claim. It was held that the transaction value of the exported goods must be determined in accordance with Section 14 of the Customs Act, based on the Fe content ascertained by the Discharge Port report, which was 58.17%. The adjudicating authority correctly found that the final invoice and amounts remitted corresponded with the contract and the Discharge Port Certificate. Since the appellant did not recover any amount exceeding the transaction value and the Fe content complied with contractual terms, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in overruling the adjudicating authority. The appeal was allowed, affirming the provisional assessment and rejecting the Commissioner (Appeals) order for lacking merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.