9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls 1 No. : Agnis 8428 8431.39 02. 10135/26-3-97 3 Nos. of Agnis 16 Nos. of Long Life Lamps for Aerobridges 8430.80 8539.29 03. 10140/26-3-97 8 Nos. of Tyres for Aerobridges 4011.99 2. As per above notifications, the benefit was extended to navigational, communica tion, air traffic control and landing equipments. Further the condition attached to entry No. 143 and 146 of Notfn. Nos. 36/96-Cus. and No. 11/97-Cus. respectively required the importer at the time of clearance to produce a certificate of Director of Civil Aviation that Navigational, Communication, Air Traffic Control and Landing Equipments are required to be used for the modernization of Air Port facilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quipments as provided under the impugned notifications. He held that the equipments are not connected with the aircraft and the notification benefit cannot be extended to the passenger system. He observed that it helps in correct positioning of the aircraft to dock with the aerobridges in an aircraft stand. These are the functions subsequent to landing of aircraft which will be used during the aircraft s flight and landing of aircraft. Accordingly, he held that the aerobridges and as a corollary its parts viz. Agnis, Long Life Lamp and Tyres are not entitled to Notfn. Nos. 36/96-Cus. and 11/97-Cus. He further observed that the wordings of the notification require the requisite certificate to be furnished by the DGCA. The notification did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded to the appellants and proceed to pass the orders on confirmation of the amount after considering the representation of the appellants and after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing. He accordingly, set aside the order-in-original and referred the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for determining the amounts of differential duty payable by the appellants afresh in the light of the observations by him. 8. The present appeal is against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). We have heard Shri D.N. Mehta, ld. Advocate and Shri M.P. Singh, ld. JDR for the respondent. The ld. Counsel for the appellants has filed photocopies of the bills of entry in respect of same or similar equipments imported by the appellants at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
