9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09/87-Cus., dated 12-5-1987. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) had taken a view that the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 188/87-Cus. was available only to the goods used in the Electronic Industry while the goods imported were actually meant for industrial control for control of different electrical operation in the Skelp Mill in the Plant of the appellants. 2. Shri K.A. Siddiqui, Manager (Finance) appearing for the appellants submitted that the High Powered Committee on disputes in their Meeting held on 11-7-1997 had already allowed the appellants to pursue their appeal in the Tribunal. He referred to the Sl. No. 14 of the SUBJECT listed in the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee on Disputes, which co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals that only the goods for the electronic industry were covered by the concessional rate of duty was not correct. With regard to auxiliary duty he referred to the Notification No. 209/87-Cus. 4. In reply, the ld. SDR referred to the Order-in-Appeal and stated that a reading of the various items will show that all the goods were for the electronic industry and the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Iron & Steel Items and the benefit of concessional rate of duty was not applicable to them. With regard to auxiliary duty, he referred to the Bill of Entry, where the Import Department's Sl. No. & Date has been mentioned and the date is 15th of May, 1987. He also stated that under relevant provision of the customs duty, the ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued on 12-6-1987 in supersession of the Notification No. 115/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. The Notification No. 138/87-Cus. (sic) was listed in the schedule to that Notification while in the Notification No. 209/87-Cus., dated 12-5-1987. Notification No. 188/98-Cus., dated 29-4-1987 is listed in the schedule, this Notification is valid only from 12-5-1987. It is seen from the relevant Bill of Entry that the relevant date for determining the duty liability is 5-5-1987 (sic). Thus the benefit of Notification No. 209/87-Cus., dated 12-5-1987 could not be extended to the goods in question. 7. Taking all the relevant considerations into account while the goods in question were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 188/87-Cus., dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
