2007 (2) TMI 406

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .G. Chacko, Member (J)]. The applications filed by the department (appellant) are for stay of operation of the impugned order. There is no representation for the respondents despite notice. The applications are moved by SDR. 2. After examining the records and hearing learned SDR, we are of the view that the appeals should be summarily disposed of. Accordingly, after dismissing the stay app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nder the Target Plus Scheme. This claim was not accepted by the original authority, which took the stand that allowing such a claim would amount to grant of double benefit . Aggrieved by this decision of the original authority, the party preferred two appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of the two bills of entry and these appeals were allowed by the appellate authority. Hence the pre .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e EPCG Notification (No. 97/2004-Cus.) provided the effective rate viz 5%. According to the respondents, only the duty assessed at the effective rate could be debited in the Target Plus Scheme. The appellant would say that duty at Tariff rate should be so debited. We find that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has offered the right answer to the question. 5. The duty leviable is a duty liable to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X