9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticulars, would be deemed to have been filed on 1-6-98 itself. Having regard to the said aspect, the question of levy of Special Additional Customs, which came into force on the midnight of 1-6-98 did not arise. See ACC for Appraisement, Group-II v. Associated Forest Products Pvt. Ltd. [1999 (11) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein held that any amendment to Bill of Entry subsequent to the da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the order of the Tribunal. (a) Whether the Tribunal is correct in deciding the date of filing of Bill of Entry as 1-6-98? (b) Whether there was proper presentation of Bill of Entry on 1-6-98 and Whether the same was presented before the proper officer. (c) When there is no provision under the Act or the rules to the effect that if the Bill of Entry not complete in particulars has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Revenue rejected the plea of the assessee that on the relevant date of representation of the Bill of Entry, there was no such Special Additional Duty of Customs. The assessees filed an appeal before the Tribunal. On account of difference of opinion, the matter was placed before a third member, who is also a Judicial Member. The said Member took the view that the corrections made in the Bill o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntal procedure and in the case on hand, on the date of filing of Bill of Entry i.e. on 1-6-98 itself, the Bill of entry was represented with corrections carried out, the Tribunal rightly came to the Conclusion that exigibility on the Special Additional duty of Customs did not arise. 3. Going by the said facts herein, we do not find any referable questions of law arises. Hence, the above Referenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
