9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cleared in violation of provisions of DEEC passbook Scheme. The appeal has raised three points in support of the contention that the order-in-original is not legal or proper. The first ground is that in similar cases involving DEEC Passbooks, the Collector had passed adjudication orders which are at variance with the impugned order. The second submission is that 24.75 metric tonnes of Polypropylene for which M/s. Polyethylene International had filed Bill of Entry as actual user, could not have been imported by that party as they had imported the goods without obtaining SSI Certificate, the SSI Certificate being dated 3-1-1991 and the import being on 30-11-1990. The third ground is that the respondents in the case had already sold part of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate before the filing of the Bill of Entry. Further, the goods were sought to be cleared on payment of duty and not duty free under Passbook Scheme. Since no duty free clearance was sought, the importer cannot be treated under the Passbook Scheme at all. He, therefore, submitted that the department s contention on this point does not have any basis. The learned Counsel pointed out that the appeal seems to have been filed on a wrong understanding of the reply filed by Counsel for Shri Sumant Prasad Jain. He took us to the narration at internal page 6 of the order impugned wherein the Collector has observed that the payment was made for purchase of the paper after processing by M/s. Jyoti Rubber and Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. and not for p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. would not be violating any law by selling the imported material. Learned Counsel submitted that it is clear from the conflicting versions in the impugned order and in the appeal that this contention has been raised by the Revenue on completely incorrect understanding of the facts. 3. It goes without saying that orders cannot be compared and grievances made, unless facts, issues for decision and evidence were the same in the cases compared. Cases cited by the Revenue are found to be different from the impugned order, as in those cases the importers had conceded the violations. With regard to the contention regarding sale of Polypropylene, it is observed that the importer was an actual user. The goods wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
