9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es for claiming such benefits. The said advanced licence had already been endorsed for transferability by the licensing Authorities and allowed the import of non-alloy steel round/wire rods and confirming to British standard 220M07 and 230M07. The respondents were asked to specify as to what is the size and specifications of wire rods used in the resultant product i.e. bolts and hot forged nuts made of non-alloy steel. Vide their letter dated 7-11-1994 the respondents replied that the size of the resultant product was within 6mm to 60mm. But they did not disclose any specifications of non-alloy steel used for the purpose of said resultant products. 2. On adjudication, it was held that the goods imported were not entitled to the benefit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se in the manufacture of the resultant product. In the absence of this ingredient having been specified, the benefit of Notification 204/94-Cus could not be extended. Ld. SDR has reiterated the aforesaid grounds. He has particularly highlighted the observations in the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs wherein it is stated, referring to the personal hearing, that thickness of material exported was within 6mm to 60mm whereas the thickness of the wire rod imported is between 9 mm to 23 mm. Ld. SDR Shri R.S. Sangia relying on this observations submitted that it is obvious that the thickness of rods between the range 9 mm to 23 mm could not be used in the manufacture of a resultant product and having thickness of 60 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the imported goods satisfy the description of goods in advance licence. He further submits that this will become impractical if the contention of the Revenue is accepted inasmuch as the appellant is only a transferee of the licence. At times, he may be a transferee far removed from the holder of the licence. It is not practically possible for him to know the specifications of the material used in the resultant product. In order to support his aforesaid proposition ld. Advocate relied on the following rulings of the Tribunal. (1) 1996 (63) ECR 111 Nitco Marble and Granite Pvt. Ltd. Anr. v. Collector of Customs (2) 1997 (94) E.L.T. 118 Commissioner of Customs v. Sandeep Impex Pvt. Ltd. (3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
