9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the decision dated 4-10-1996 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) made in Order-in-Appeal No. 720/96 BCH whereunder he had set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay made in order dated 4-8-1993. In the Order-in-Original Additional Collector had held that the goods that were imported by the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms authorities had passed Notification No. 41/93, dated 28-2-1993 partially exempting these goods from the purview of levy of duty issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant s argument is that if the goods are prohibited goods why the above notification is issued by the Customs Department themselves. 3. As against this Shri D. Gurnani the ld. JDR would argue that the Orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icence period namely 1992-97. As has been rightly argued by the ld. Counsel Shri J.C. Patel, that if the goods are not freely importable why notification under Section 25 of the Customs Act is made by the Customs Department exempting partially the goods from levy of Customs Duty. The order passed by the Appellate Collector is not at all correct in our view. Hence we set aside the same and restore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
