9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omputer parts under warranty replacements free of charge and claimed benefit of Notification 80/70, dated 24-8-1970. The original authority held that Notification 80/70 was not available to importer in view of the Bombay High Court judgment in case of M/s. Birla Erickson (Tools) Ltd. v. Union of India others where it was held that notification is not eligible if the goods have been imported for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that in Bombay High Court judgments relied upon by the department importer had not fulfilled the conditions of notification whereas in the instant case there is no such allegation and the appellant has fulfilled all the conditions of Notification therefore on this ground also judgments of Bombay High Court is distinguishable. 3. I have carefully gone through the submissions made by the counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal authority, referred to condition No. 1 which says that defective articles were not brought into India earlier from places outside India and were private personal property of the importer; so held that exemption was not for commercial purpose. The goods were not imported as private property but were imported for commercial purpose. Since the original authority has relied upon the judgments o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther incorporated or not, therefore the word personal cannot be confined to the dictionary meaning. Again in a similar issue of Kesoram Industries v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta CEGAT had extended the benefit of the Notification 80/70 saying that goods imported by the company i.e., Kesoram Industries were private personal property and relied upon the Mumbai High Court judgment in case of Echj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
