2020 (2) TMI 920

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he refund on the ground that the refund claim was ineligible. The above view of the adjudicating authority came to be upheld by the first appellate authority vide impugned order-in-Appeal No. 1338/2014 dated 30.07.2014, who also found interalia that there was likelihood of mix up of goods of different grades. The above denial has resulted in this appeal. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing Shri Ramesh Ananthan, Learned Advocate, along with Shri K. Sundarraman, Learned Advocate, appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant had imported vide three Bills of Entry of different dates (ie., 9/10/2010, 11/11/2010 & 14/02/11) "Calcium Carbonate Powder" which were sold under the invoice name "Mineral Powder". He would also sub....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Revenue that either the goods are different or that they are different categories per se, falling under different HSN. No doubt, appellant could have submitted a certificate by an expert in the field in order to facilitate easy appreciation of the issue by the Revenue, but then the adjudicating authority could have questioned the same, invited explanation to his satisfaction, in order to arrive at any conclusion. It is not even his case that the descriptions would bring into existence two different goods, different in all respects nor has the Revenue proved that the Mineral Powder is not a generic term for the goods in question. Further, the Order-in-Original is not even alleging that "Calcium Carbonate Powder" and "Mineral Powder" are d....