Maharashtra. While calculating the assessable value of the liquor for levy of Octroi, countervailing duty was sought to be included in such value. He submitted that Section 105 and 106 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, was similar to Sections 27 and 28 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that essence of countervailing duty is to set off the effect of non-payment of tax on manufacture. It is meant to protect the indigenous production. Further, it was held that importing goods into Greater Bombay with an intention to use it was sufficient for the purpose of levy of Countervailing Duty. Therefore, from this very judgment, it is evident that countervailing duty is completely different concept to customs duty / excise duty under the Central Excise Act. For countervailing duty, it matters not whether goods are destroyed since the levy is on import. Obviously, this cannot be equated with custom duty or excise duty where the incidence of levy is the clearance of the goods. The other judgments cited by the petitioner do not improve the case of the petitioner. In the case of Govind Saran Ganga Saran Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax and others [(1985) Supp. SC 205], it has been held that there is no uncertainty or vagueness in defining the taxable event, person on whom levy is imposed, rate of tax or the value to which the rate will apply. Hence, this Judgement is clearly inapplicable. In the case of Sree Balaji Enterprises, Bangalore versus Excise Commissioner in Karnataka, Bangalore and others [(2007) SCC Online Kar 16], the dispute was whether excise duty (i.e. goods manufactured inside the State) would be levied when goods are destroyed. In the said case, as per the prevalent rules, charging section for levy of excise duty is made operative only upon issue from any distillery. In the present case however, the Act is clear that CVD is levied at the time of import itself and is payable normally upon import. Only a facility for postponement of collection is provided. In any event, CVD is different to excise duty and cannot be equated with excise duty. Further, the judgments relied upon by the Respondents do not find reference in this particular judgment. The judgment rendered by this Court in the case of M/s WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. versus The State of Jharkhand and others [W.P (T) No. 2429/2018] was in the context of JVAT Act inter-alia holding that claim for refund would be maintainable even if there is no provision under the JVAT Act. The same is clearly inapplicable for the reason that the petitioner is not entitled to any refund in this case, since it is their liability to pay countervailing duty at the time of import. 17. Another contention raised by the petitioner is that it has paid the countervailing duties on behalf of Respondent No. 3 and therefore, in any
