2002 (7) TMI 655

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). In the impugned Order the benefit of Notification No. 23/98-Cus. dated 2-6-98 was denied to the appellants. 2. The appellants made import of one second-hand machine and declared the same in the Bill of Entry as Shoe Stitcher. The Bill of Entry was assessed a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the notification in the Bill of Entry. The appellants claimed the benefit first time before the Commissioner (Appeals) and without any evidence to show that the machine in question is outsole stitching machine. As the appellants had not produced any evidence in support of their claim before the Commissioner (Appeals) nor before us in the present appeal, we find no infirmity in the impugned Orde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X