9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent. [Order per : M.P. Bohra, Member (J)]. This appeal has been filed against the order of Commissioner of Customs, Cochin dated 31st July, 2003. 2. We have heard S/Shri Uma Kr. Dutta, S. Dasgupta and Ujjwal Kr. Bose, all Advocates, for the appellants and Shri N.K. Mishra, ld. JDR for the respondents. 3. Shri Dasgupta submits that this case was remanded by this Tribunal vide its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld. JDR. The following directions were given by the Tribunal while remanding the case to the Commissioner for fresh consideration : 4. After giving our careful consideration to the submissions made by the ld. Advocate and the ld. SDR, we find ourselves agreeing with the ld. Advocate. The evidence produced by the appellants in the shape of documents in support of its contention that the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d above). The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand. 6. From perusal of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, it reveals that the Commissioner has not considered the documents produced by the appellants. He observed as under : All the correspondence produced later on were after the value was questioned and showcause notice issued. It is abundantly clear that the Commissioner has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
