2012 (10) TMI 195

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ement of timber imported from elsewhere was following the formula adopted in European, African and Malasian countries, i.e. 1 Hoppuston = 1.8027M3, whereas it ought to have been reckoned at the rate of 1 Hoppuston = 1.416M3. The pleadings as well as the materials would reveal that the goods imported by the petitioner from abroad was assessed to duty payable adopting the conversion table following the formula as 1 Hoppuston = 1.416M3. It is the case of the petitioner that the proceedings were finalised on that basis. But subsequently, based on some adverse notings made by the Sales Tax Department, the Customs authorities sought to undo the things, which made the petitioner to have it challenged in W.P.(C) 33566 of 2009, culminating in Ext. P....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the petitioner submits that Ext. PI has become final, based on which all the penalty proceedings have been dropped. In the course of events, the petitioner filed an application for refund, which however was considered by the second respondent, allegedly in a wrong and perverse manner, leading to Ext. P7, whereby only a partial refund has been ordered, which made the petitioner to approach this Court challenging the same. 4. The case of the petitioner, as put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, while considering the claim for refund the second respondent has sought to pursue the very same exercise, whereby the conversion has been sought to be made at the rate of 1 Hoppuston = 1.8027M3 instead of 1 Hoppuston = 1....