9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent. [Judgment per: N.K. Patil, J.]. - The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 21st October 2005 passed in Appeal No. 40/2005 vide its Final Order No. 1865/2005 [2006 (206) E.L.T. 1007 (Tri. - Bang.)], has presented this appeal, raising the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Tribunal was right hi coming to a conclusion that the JDGFT had extended the li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Be that as it may. The appellant had initiated proceedings against the respondent by issuing demand notice. The same has been assailed by the respondent before the jurisdictional competent authority, which in turn, confirmed the demand made by the Commissioner of Customs in their order-in-original No. 44/2004-Cus. Adjn. (Commr.) dated 28-12-2004 vide Annexure-C, holding that respondent has failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod had been extended for two years i.e. upto 2-8-2007 in terms of para 5.11 of Handbook of Procedures 2004-2009. The Tribunal after careful perusal of the communication dated 12-8-2004 and following the judgment of the this court in the case of Torus India Ltd. v. CC, Chennai reported in 2005 (183) E.L.T. 87 (Tri.-Chennai) wherein in a similar circumstances, the demands were set aside as premat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on instruction that, as per the communication dated 12th August 2004, the period of import obligation in respect of respondent has been extended upto 2-8-2007. But this aspect of the matter has not been brought to the notice of the Commissioner of Customs before passing the said order. The same has been considered and appropriated by the Tribunal it its order dated 21-10-2005. Therefore, we do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
