9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The relevant documents have been produced. Therefore, we allow the miscellaneous application for amending the cause title. 2. In terms of the impugned order, the appellant is required to pre-deposit the following amount towards duty : Rs. 33,43,605/- along with interest 3. Shri M. Balagopal the learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants. Ms Sudha Koka, the learned SDR, appeared for the Revenue. 4. We heard both sides. 5. The appellants imported and MRI Scanner by filing bill of Entry No. 1001 dated 22-5-2006. The total duty leviable on the goods is Rs. 33,43,605/-. The appellant sought clearance of the goods under the Served from India Scheme in terms of Notification 92/2004-Cus. dated 10-9-2004. They produced Licence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification 92/2004, dated 10-9-2004. He also referred to the Notification No. 20/2006-Cus., dated 1-3-2006 exempting CVD under Section 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act on the goods where Basic Customs Duty and CVD under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act are exempted. In other words, the learned Advocate could show us three notifications for exemption from (i) Basic Customs Duty (ii) CVD under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and (iii) CVD under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. In view of the above, he argued that there is no need to discharge any special additional duty of 4%. His further argument is that the duty at the rate of 4% under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act was introduced with effect from March, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. There are further conditions in the said notification. In terms of proviso to para (i) provided that exemption from duty shall not be admissible, if there is insufficient credit in the said certificate for debiting the duties leviable on the goods but for this exemption. It is not disputed that the credit in the certificate in respect of the appellant is not equal to the duties leviable on the goods. The learned Advocate in the course of hearing pointed out that the credit available is sufficient to cover the basic customs duty. As regards additional customs duty leviable under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act 1975, he claimed exemption under Notification 6/2006. Further, he stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
