9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeared for the respondents. In a letter, dated 3-4-1987, the respondents, however, requested this Tribunal to decide the case on the basis of the grounds of cross objection filed by them on 10.3.1987 in their absence as the amount involved in the appeal is small and it will be expensive to send their authorised representative. They also stated in the said letter that Tribunal s decision in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 1-3-1975 to the imported goods for the purpose of additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, came for consideration. This Tribunal in the said case followed the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of B.S. Kamath and Company and Others v. Union of India and Others reported in 1986(24) E.L.T. 456 (Karnataka) and also considered the observations of the Hon ble Suprem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 55/75-CE, dated 1-3-1975 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the aforesaid decisions, it was also held that benefit of exemption Notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules is not admissible to the imported goods unless the Notification specifically exempts imported goods from the levy of additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
