2016 (12) TMI 1367

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rter thereafter filed refund claims as per Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dt. 14/09/2007 seeking refund of 4% SAD paid at the time of import of goods for the various Bills of Entry. The original authority sanctioned part of the refund claims and denied some portion of the refund on the ground that timber logs sold do not tally with the import packing list. The appellants contested the rejection of refund by filing appeals before the first appellate authority and vide orders impugned herein, the Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the order of rejection made by the original authority. Hence these appeals. 3. On behalf of the appellants, the learned counsel Shri Y. Sreenivasa Reddy submitted that the appellant is an importer/trader and the timber ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ieces of the same logs may not be transported in one truck and the pieces of convenient sizes of different logs may be normally transported as per the space available in the truck. This may cause logs of different sizes transported in different trucks. The learned counsel relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Gayatri Timber Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Visakhapatnm [2016(336) ELT 173 (Tri. Hyd.)] and in the case of CC Vs. Variety Lumbers Pvt. Ltd. [2014(302) ELT 519 (Guj.)]. 5. Learned AR Shri Arun Kumar appearing for the Department submitted that the refund was sanctioned in respect of logs which tallied with the packing list and that authorities below have rightly denied the refund in respect of logs/goods which did not tally with the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....list. This may be the reason that the appellants have not put forward the specific contention before the authorities below that the logs were cut to facilitate transportation and therefore differed in their dimensions. Further, it is also to be seen that the appellants were not issued a show-cause notice. The absence of show-cause notice, needless to say, has deprived the appellant an opportunity to defend the case in the correct perspective. They stressed upon the ground that before the adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner(Appeals), they put forward the contention that it is not necessary that the goods should match with the packing list and that the packing list is not a material document to be relied upon for grant of refun....