9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th, SDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : Harish Chander, Member (J)]. Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. had filed a revision application to the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi being aggrieved from Order-in-Appeal No. S/49-44/81 Air dated 16th March, 1981 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The said revision application s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valve. He had rejected the appellant s claim for CV duty in toto. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the appellant had filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Collector of Customs who also rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the appellant had come in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Shri S.D. Jamdar has appeared on behalf of the appellants. He has reiterated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ates that his arguments are the same which he had advanced in Order Nos. 771 to 811/86-B2, dated 29th August, 1986. However, he states that as to the levy of CV duty under Tariff Item 68 he has got no objection. For the benefit of Notification No. 395/76, dated 2nd April, 1976 he accepts that there is a Government of India decision and he leaves it to the Bench. He states that the Government of In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r query, the learned Departmental Representative s reply was in negative. Accordingly we hold that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 395/76-Cus., dated 2nd August, 1976. 6. For the levy of the CV duty we would like to observe that CV duty was not leviable in terms of Notification No. 395/76, dated 2-8-1976. In the present matter before us the Bill of Entry is dated 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
