2017 (3) TMI 1629

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : B. Ravichandran, Member (T)]. - The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 31-12-2008 of Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut-II. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants imported sports shoes from Nepal and filed 2 Bills of Entry in January and February, 2001. They claimed the classification under Tariff Heading 6401.10, which is meant for foo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s that the classification is relevant for additional duty of customs. The same is determined by the retail sale price which should not exceed Rs. 125/- per pair. The term "retail sale price" has the meaning as given in Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since MRP is to be established by the product labelled, not by any other evidence, the claim of the appellant cannot be accepted. 5.&ems....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the appeal records indicates the reasons for payment under protest and subsequent evidence in support of such protest is not forthcoming. It is also to be noted that no adjudication or proceedings by the assessing officer was recorded subsequent to such protest to resolve the issue. We find that after almost 9 years of import, such a resolution based on material evidence is not practicable. Henc....