2007 (2) TMI 76

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. 31,06,897/- and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 6,25,000/- and personal penalty of Rs. 1,75,000/-. The appellants cleared the goods on payment of duty, fine and penalty. The duty paid comes to Rs. 18,71,312/-. The appellants challenged the orders of the lower authority before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 10-10-2003 set aside the order of the lower authority loading the value of the goods imported and imposing fine and penalty. Consequent, to the favourable order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant claimed a refund of Rs. 17,62,044/-. The Asst. Commissioner while sanctioning the refund of fine and penalty amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/- rejected the refund of duty on the ground that the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h the records of the case carefully. The lower authority has already refunded the fine and penalty. The dispute is only with regard to the refund of duty. The main objection of the lower authority is that there are two certificates of the Chartered Accountant, which differ in particulars. It is stated that the certificate dated 10-11-2003, the sale value is shown as Rs. 21,44,890/-. However, in the certificate dated 23-8-2004 the sale value is shown at Rs. 23,84 The difference comes to Rs. 2,39,946/-. In our view rejecting the entire refund amount to the tune of Rs. 9,62,044/- on the ground of discrepancy of Rs. 2,39,946/- does not appear to be correct. The appellants have produced 5 invoices whose particulars are as follows. Invoice No.....