Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1989 (10) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondents, M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., had filed 5 refund claims and the refund was on the ground that oxygen regulators, oxygen cylinders and hose L.P. imported by the respondents were aircraft parts and were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 206/76-Cus., dated 2nd August, 1976. The learned Assistant Collector had rejected the refund claims of the respondents on the ground that oxygen cylinders, oxygen regulators and hose L.P. were not aircraft parts and they were not entitled to the Notification of 206/76-Cus and had rejected the refund claims. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the respondents had filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) and before Collector (A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Ramamirthan, Dy. General Manager (Finance) has appeared on behalf of the respondents. He has relied on the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) and has also filed a photocopy of the technical opinion of Dr. R.K. Gupta, Dy. General Manager (Design), which was filed before the Collector (Appeals) and it is mentioned that there part No. 315A-73-01-100 and it is mentioned there that the system configuration and its construction are specific to Helicopter usage are of baro-anemometric type which sense operation below 3000 metres. He has pleaded for the rejection of the appeals. 4. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We have also persued the photocopy of the installation ox .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... efit of notification under a particular notification and subsequently he makes a claim the same has to be extended. In the matter before us the only difference is that the respondents had claimed benefit of notification of Sl. No. 1 of Notification No.206/76-Cus whereas the Collector (Appeals) had granted the benefit of Sl. No. 4 of Notification No. 206/76-Cus. We are fully satisfied that the imported items are fully covered by the Sl. No. 4, military stores, accordingly we do not find any merits in the appellants appeals. The same are dismissed. Before we part, we would like to observe while granting refund to the respondents and Assistant Collector should satisfy himself that the respondents were in possession of proper duty exemption c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates