9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. This is an appeal against the O-I-A No. 01/2002, dated 11-1-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad. The appellants imported goods declared as Spares for Compressor on 21st March, 1997 at Visakhapatnam. The value shown in the invoice was DM 160. The goods were allowed clearance on payment of duty of Rs. 2,161/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the order of the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved over the decision of the lower authority, the appellant has come before this Tribunal. 2. Shri M.V.S. Appa Rao, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri U. Raja Ram, learned JDR appeared on behalf of the department. 3. The learned Advocate submitted that the goods received at Visakhapatnam were only replacement parts rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he mistake of not sending items in Sl. Nos. 18 and 19 and despatched the same consignment to the appellant to Visakhapatnam. These goods were supplied free as they were the missing items as per the Purchase Order. For Customs purposes a nominal value of DM 160 was mentioned. The learned Advocate contended that they had already paid duty on the missing goods at Chennai and it is not fair to charge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only missing items is acceptable. RINL being a Public Sector Undertaking, their explanation can be accepted. They had already paid duty on these items at Chennai. Hence, demanding duty on these items by Visakhapatnam Customs House amounts to demand of duty twice. Under these circumstances, the appeal of the appellant deserves sympathetic consideration. Hence, the same is allowed with consequential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
