STANDARD SHOE SOLE &AMP Vs. CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appeal arises against the order of this Court made in W.P.No.38054 of 2016 dated 02.11.2016.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as follows:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_302_LAWS(MAD)1_2018_1.html</FRM>

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in the application filed before the 1st respondent, the appellant has claimed NIL liability, insofar as the raw materials is concerned, which amount was not mentioned anywhere by the Department in the report and 90% depreciation claimed by the petitioner was objected by the Department and the first respondent fixed the admitted liability, even though the appellant has claimed that the raw materials were unfit for consumption and to be destroyed. That is why, the appellant in the application before the first respondent and in the worksheet attached has mentioned NIL duty on the raw materials.