2009 (2) TMI 641

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Heard both sides. Shri K.P. Singh, learned Departmental Representative (SDR) arguing on behalf of the Department challenges the impugned order passed by the lower appellate Authority on the ground that the said order merely quotes several case laws but does not discuss the facts of the present case and how those case laws are applicable to the present case. Moreover, he states that the impugned P .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ly imported by M/s. Jewel Polymers who have sold the same to M/s. Balaji Plastics and that it is possible that the impugned goods are related to some earlier imports covered by different Bills of Entries. He states that a plea was made before the original Authority to further enquire the matter from M/s. Jewel Polymers but the same has not been done to come to the right conclusion. 2. After .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er is remanded to the original Authority for fresh decision. The original Authority will be at liberty to obtain fresh evidence from M/s. Jewel Polymers to come to a definite conclusion as to whether the impugned goods are imported by them as claimed by the Respondents and whether the batch No. tallies with any of the earlier imports made by them. 4. All the four Appeal are remanded in the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X