9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of no financial benefit to the assessee - Prima facie no differential duty can be demanded from the assessee at the time of re-export of the same - policy was changed subsequently and Rule 7A was introduced in the said Rules allowing re-export of the unutilized imported goods. The appellant at the time of import of the goods claimed the classification under heading 9013 which attract nil rate of duty - The classification was not allowed to be adopted and the same was changed to 8529 - LCD panels were appropriately classifiable under 9013 - there was no stay of the operation of the said order of the Tribunal - If that be so, the appellant was required not to pay even 5% of duty, which they have initially paid at the time of import of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of import of LCD panels and undertaking was also given by the applicant. 4. It so happened that some LCD panels imported by the appellant could not be put to use and the same are exported to the supplier. The dispute arises in respect of the said re-exported panels. Revenue, by entertaining a view that inasmuch as the applicant has not used the imported goods in the manufacture of their final product, the concessional customs duty paid by the applicant at the time of import of the goods was not available to them. Accordingly, Revenue sought to recover the differential duty for which proceedings were initiated against the applicant appellant resulting in passing of the present impugned order. 5. We have heard both side on the stay petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the learned advocate that no differential duty can be demanded from the assessee at the time of re-export of the same. 7. Apart from the above, we note that policy was changed subsequently and Rule 7A was introduced in the said Rules allowing re-export of the unutilized imported goods. 8. In any case and in any view of the matter we also note that the appellant at the time of import of the goods claimed the classification under heading 9013 which attract nil rate of duty. The said classification was not allowed to be adopted and the same was changed to8529. Now the Tribunal in the case of Videocon Industries Ltd. vs. CCE Aurangabad [2009 (92) RLT 383 (CESTAT-Mum)] has held that LCD panels are appropriately classifiable under 9013. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
