9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. Ld. Advocate Shri M. Chandershekharan prays for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of Rs. 58,65,851/- demanded as duty and he also prays for similar treatment of personal penalty of an equivalent amount under Rule 114A of the Customs Act on the first appellant M/s. Polar Appliances Ltd. He also prays for stay of recovery of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein. He submits that the reasons advanced by the adjudicating authority for denying the benefit of Notification No. 50/95 is to apply Rule 2(a) even to Notification No. 50/95 which he submits is totally illegal in view of the Tribunal s judgment in the case referred to in Maruti Udyog. He therefore submits that the applicants have a strong prima facie case so far as the payments of the different ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CDR submits that the benefit of notification has rightly been denied once it is admitted by the applicants that in terms of Rule 2(a) imported goods can I characterised a complete home appliance. There is no reason to treat them differently for the purpose of notification as has been done by the adjudicating authority. He therefore submits that appellant do not have a strong prima facie case. As r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dyog Ltd. will not apply to the interpretation of Notification No. 50/95. In view of the above, we are of the opinion, that applicant has a strong prima facie case. Demand of differential duty of Rs. 58,65,851/- if it relates entirely to the parts covered under Notification No. 50/95, would prima facie be unsustainable. Our attention was, however, drawn to the list of parts available at pages 118 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
