9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. The appellants were engaged in the export of garments during the material period. They had imported plastic hangers and filed bill of entry dated 3-11-1995 for clearance thereof claiming the benefit of Notification No. 81/95-Cus., dated 31-3-1995. This benefit was denied and consequently the goods had to be cleared on payment of appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r discharge of export obligation and that there should be at least 10% value addition are some of the other conditions of the Notification. Both the lower authorities denied the benefit of the Notification to the appellants on the ground that the import of the goods was not against any export order placed by the supplier of the goods for jobbing etc. It is submitted by the appellant s counsel that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have used the plastic hangers for the export of ready-made garments. 3. Learned SDR submits that none of the conditions of the Notification was fulfilled by the party. It was not established that the imports of hangers were against export orders placed by the supplier of the goods for jobbing, repairing etc. The hangers with the garments were not shown to have been re-exported to the supplier of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exports be made to the supplier of the input. There is also no material on record to indicate as to whether any of the other conditions of the Notification was fulfilled by the appellants. The case law cited by learned Counsel viz. Texport Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2004 (165) E.L.T. 415 (Tri.-Chennai)] and Brindha Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2006 (19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
