9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue raised a demand against the Appellants for Rs. 22 crores and then confirmed it after adjudication - Against the order requiring the Appellants to refund the drawback amount, they preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which as already noticed required them to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 2.5 crores as a condition for hearing the appeal. Since the Appellants did not deposit the amount, the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Appellants in W.P. (C) No. 2332 of 2007. Meanwhile, since the Appellants did not deposit the said amount, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated March 26th, 2007. 3. We heard the matter on 5th October, 2007 and were inclined to dismiss the appeal. While we were in the process of dictating the order, learned counsel for the Appellants sought some time to deposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Respondents found that the Appellants were sending the goods to Moscow via Finland. Although the goods may have left India and reached the destination, they were the Appellants received drawback benefits to the extent of Rs. 22 crores. On this basis the Revenue raised a demand against the Appellants for Rs. 22 crores and then confirmed it after adjudication. Consequently, the Appellants were r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
