1998 (8) TMI 282

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ident]. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21-5-1991 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai by which he had held that the rejection of the refund claim of the appellant s for exemption under Notification No. 347/86 is in order and upheld the Assistant Commissioner s order. 2. The appellants filed a refund claim on the ground that they are eligible for exemption under Notificati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the recommendation for the grant of exemption by that authority. Therefore the certificate was held to be not fulfilling the condition in the Notification. The appeal was therefore rejected. 2. None is present for the appellants despite notice. They have stated that prior to July 1989 duty concession certificate was based on proforma by the DGTD authority and that as an importer they had no o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ecommending the exemption. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the certificate produced did not contain any specific recommendation by the DGTD for granting exemption to the appellant. But at the same time the Commissioner has given a finding that the ink imported by the appellants is covered by the Notification Serial No. 24(i). Therefore it is clear that even according to the lower authorit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X