2017 (7) TMI 486

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unds of litigation, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-Appeal No. 46/84 (T) dated 31.12.1984, allowed abatements towards freight and durable and returnable containers and directed the original authority to quantify such abatements. In compliance to the directions, the differential duty was worked out and aggrieved by such order in computing the differential duty, the appellants filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The Hon'ble High Court directed the original authority to act in accordance with the decision rendered by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order No. 46/84 dated 31.12.84. Pursuant to such direction of the Hon'ble High Court, the Assistant Collector computed the differential duty and passed order as und....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not been taken into account by the original authority. That the refund given by the appellant to consumers/dealers on the returnable containers is Rs. 5 and Rs. 5.50, whereas, the original authority has given abatements to the tune of Rs. 8.03 and Rs. 6.88 etc., for the relevant period; that therefore the quantification is erroneous. 3. Against this, the Ld. Counsel Shri G. Derrick Sam, appearing for the respondents explained that the respondents had refunded Rs. 5 for the metallic returnable containers, wherein the cost of the container was Rs. 8, which has been shown and declared in the price list by them; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has compared the price declared in the price list 7/79 with that of corresponding dealer s price lis....