9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about the hearing of the matter and secondly that the appellants have a very good case on merits, the same is clear from the Circular No. 29/2006-Cus., dated 27-12-2006. 3. On the other hand, it is the case of department that the order dated 30-11-2010 was passed in stay application and such orders are not subject to review and in this regard reliance is placed in the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Baron International Ltd. v. UOI reported in 2004 (163) E.L.T. 150, of the Tribunal in the matter of Jai Prakash Strips Ltd. v. CCE & C, Nasik reported in 2009 (243) E.L.T. 476 = 2011 (22) S.T.R. 238 (Tribunal), Pankaj Oxygen Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur, reported in 2010 (262) E.L.T. 967 (Tri.-Del.) and Canon Colour Lab v. CCE, Gun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence, it could not apply to the period in question and that has been clarified by the Tribunal in the case of Surya Roshni Ltd. v. CCE, Rohtak reported in 2010 (256) E.L.T. 85 = 2010 (20) S.T.R. 728 (Tribunal). He also submitted that the issue has been referred to the Larger Bench. 6. As far as the application for recall of stay order dated 30-11-2010 is concerned, the application itself discloses that the appellant had been attending the matter on earlier occasion i.e. on 29th July, 18th October and 1st November, 2010. It has been categorically stated in the application that the notice regarding the hearing of the matter on 30-11-2010 was sent by ordinary post and the same reached the intended address on the date of hearing and that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is to be presumed that the postal authorities had delivered the letter on 26-11-2010 to the addressee. There is no rebuttal evidence on records and, therefore, the contention of the appellant that the notice was received on 30-11-2010 cannot be accepted. 7. Even on merits of the case, we do not find that the appellants having made out a prima facie case. There is no doubt that the Customs Circular No. 29/2006 dated 27-12-2006 in para 4 it is stated that in the light of the aforesaid provisions, with effect from 14-3-2006, Chapter XA of the Customs Act, 1962, the SEZ Rules, 2003, the SEZ Customs Procedure Regulations, 2003, and the exemption notification No. 58/2003-C.E., dated 22-7-2003 regarding the supply of goods sent to SEZ uni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merely because in the main body of amending provision the term "substituted" is used that itself cannot lead to conclusion that the proposed amendment is in the nature of clarification. Neither the said notification gives any indication about the proposed amendment to be in the nature of clarification nor we have been pointed out any material which would suggest that the said amendment is clarificatory in nature. However, in view of the fact that the Tribunal in another case has already held the same to be clarificatory in nature, which, with utmost respect, we are not persuaded to agree to, it would in the fitness of the case to refer the matter to a Larger Bench to decide the said issue. 9. Apparently, the amendment to the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
