2021 (10) TMI 772

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r, Addl. Commissioner(AR) ORDER The short point for consideration in this case is the eligibility of the appellant for refund of 4% of Special Additional Duty (SAD) in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Cus dt. 14/09/2007. The appellant made the above claim for refund and after due adjudication, vide the Order-in-Original dt. 04/08/2018, the Assistant Commissioner rejected 4% SAD of Rs. 40,81....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....)] v. CCE, Pune-II Vs. Mercedes Benz (I) Pvt. Ltd. [2018(11) GSTL 389 (Tri. Mum.)] vi. Pee Pee International Vs. CC(ICD), Tughlakabad, New Delhi [2016(343) ELT 72 (Del.)] vii. CC, Bangalore vs. Octel Networks Pvt. Ltd. [Final Order No.20884/2019 dt. 25/10/2019, CESTAT, Bangalore] viii. Shandong Heavy Industries India P. Ltd. Vs. CC, JNPT, Nhava Sheva-II, Raigad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the appellant was correct in claiming refund of 4% SAD which was in terms with the settled position. 5. Learned Representatives fairly agree that the above issue in appeal is subject-matter of difference of opinion by Hon'ble non-jurisdictional High Courts and that we do not have the benefit of guidance by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. There can be no dispute on the proposition....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erstanding of the legal position and of the propriety, it will be wholly inappropriate for me to choose views of one of the High Courts based on perceptions about reasonableness of the respective viewpoints, as such an exercise will de facto amount to sitting in judgment over the views of the Hon'ble High Courts- something diametrically opposed to the very basic principles of hierarchical judi....