2009 (5) TMI 783

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... : D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. - None present for the appellant. 2. Learned DR Shri Sumit Kumar submits that the appellant was allowed to import capital goods valued at Rs. 27,33,863/- under EPCG Licence No. 01500298, dated 15-3-1996 on concessional rate of duty. According to the Scheme of concession, the appellant was required to install the capital goods in its Ludhiana factory and make use of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt was not entitled to the concession basing on the clarification issued by Ministry of Law. That Ministry has clarified that exclusive use of the capital goods is necessity for grant of the concession. The concession granted should be construed strictly within the purview of Exim Policy. When the appellant failed to prove that the discharge of export obligation was the outcome of the imported cap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... page 66 and also the clarification issued by Ministry of Law at page 3 of order of adjudication, we are of the belief that the learned Commissioner has passed appropriate order making his observation that the goods manufactured in Gurgaon was only subjected to discharge of export obligation by the Appellant. The capital goods installed at Ludhiana factory did not result in discharge of export obl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X