9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed present appeal. We have heard Shri Nagesh Pathak for Revenue, nobody appeared for the respondent. 2. On- going through the impugned orders, we find that the respondents imported Hing and cleared the same on payment of Customs Duty and counter-veiling duty as leviable under the Act. It is seen that at the time of assessment, they cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rter claimed the benefit of Notification No. 13/2006. The same was denied by the Customs Authorities. As such, there were two different views prevailing at the time of clearance of the imported goods. Whereas, the importer was of the view that the benefit of the Notification is available to him, Revenue was of the view that such benefit is not available. Accordingly, the same was denied by the Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequent to clearance of the goods, the appellant filed an application for correcting the above mistake in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act. However, we note that denial of an exemption notification by the Revenue authorities cannot be considered to be a mistake on the bill of entry, requiring any rectification under Section 149. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, we set aside the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
