9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ember (T)]. In this case the claim for refund of duty was rejected on the ground that the goods imported from Spain on 6-2-1987 are not eligible for benefit of Customs Notification 342/76. The appellants had claimed that the impugned goods which were imported from Spain were entitled for concessional rate of duty under the GATT Notification No. 342/76. This however, was effective for imports ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined operative till the mid-night. He also stated in support Bombay High Court s judgment in the case of All India Medical Corporation v. A.R. Almeida - 1981 (8) E.L.T. 929 (Bom.). 3. Arguing for the revenue, ld. DR submits that proviso to Section 15 makes it clear that if a Bill of Entry has been presented before the date of entry of the vessel by which the goods are imported, the Bill of Entry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a warehouse under Section 68, on the date on which the goods are actually removed from the warehouse; (c) in the case of any other goods on the date of payment of duty; Proviso to this Section makes it clear that if a Bill of Entry has been presented before the date of entry inwards of the vessel by which the goods are imported, the bill of entry shall be deemed to have presented on the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt held that the view taken by the Madras High Court represents the correct view. We find that the Collector (Appeals) has recorded that as per Bill of Entry the vessel arrived on 6-2-1987. The appellants have not furnished any evidence that this was not a date recorded in Customs register as the date when entry is made. 5. The appellants in their appeal memo have contended that in terms of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
