9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. This is an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 33/2002, dated 5-4-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin. 2. The facts of the case are as follows :- The appellant M/s. Kerala State Science and Technology Museum cleared a consignment containing zoom projector and X-Y moving table, on payment of duty amount of Rs. 26,25,571/-. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re he rejected the appeal. The appellants are aggrieved over the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Shri Manoj Pillai learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri R.V. Ramakrishnappa learned DR for the Revenue. 4. The learned Advocate submitted that even as early as 22-12-98, they applied to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research for registration. Their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s valid up to 31-8-2004. Therefore, the observation of the respondent that the registration is valid from 20-7-2001 is obviously erroneous. In other words the learned advocate opined that the registration should be deemed to be valid even from the date of import of the consignment. Hence he requested that the benefit of exemption notification should be given to the appellant. Further he relied on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id goods are required for research purposes only. In this case, at the time of importation, there was no registration at all. Ultimately the registration was issued on 20th July, 2001. The appellant vehemently contends that the registration certificate should be deemed to be valid even from the date of import of the impugned goods. We are afraid that such interpretation would go very much against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
