9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, it was to be noted that the appellant had not kept back any information from the Department and hence the claim of the appellant that the demand of duty is hit by limitation, seems to be on stronger wicket and needs consideration - Be that as it may, it was also undisputed that the item SAW pipes manufactured by the appellant had to conform to standard of American Petroleum Industry i.e. API and it should be manufactured only out of grade of stainless steel as indicated therein – the appellant had made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit the amounts involved - Applications for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts involved were allowed and recovery stayed till the disposal of appeals – Stay granted. - Appeal No.C/11460-11463/2013-DB - - - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that the appellant herein had consumed all the steels which was imported, in the manufacture of SAW pipes and exported. It is his submission the adjudicating authority has accepted this fact and has not recorded any adverse findings that the appellant had indulged into diversion of the inputs. It is his further submission that the appellant had always provided the certificate required i.e. MTC certificate to the authorities at the time of imports. He would also submit that identical goods manufactured by Indian manufacturer i.e. M/s Essar Steels Ltd, having very same specification are procured by the appellant and the Indian manufacturer is classifying the very same product under Chapter Heading No.7208. It is his submission that when t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il in-eligible benefit of Notification No.21/2002. As regards the imports made under advance licences, it is his submission that the advance lincence given to the appellant was for import of non-alloy steel, while what was imported was alloy steel and hence there is a mis-declaration. 4. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. On perusal of the records, we find strong force in the contention of ld.Counsel that prior to the period involved in this case, the appellant has been importing very same goods and declaring the same under Chapter 7208. We have perused the Bills of Entry which are disputed. On perusal of these Bills of Entry, we find that the appellant has been declaring the goods as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
