9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or export and after fulfilling the export obligation disposed the said goods as per permission granted by the Development Commissioner. Since the goods imported had been used for the purposes specified in Clause (a) to (d) or for the purposes of specified in the export import policy in the manner approved by the Development Commissioner as laid down in the said Customs notification they are eligible for full exemption on the impugned goods under Notification No.133/94-CUS. case may be remitted back to the adjudicating Commissioner for fresh decision and therefore after granting waiver of pre-deposits of the amounts adjudged - matter remanded back. - 114-116/2008 - FO/A/75151-75153/14 - Dated:- 21-4-2014 - D M Misra and I P Lal, JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufactured from the imported goods although the Applicant/Appellant namely M/s. Nisith Impex (P) Ltd. were allowed the benefit of exemption Notification No.2/95-CE, but the duty was demanded on the enhanced value as the transaction price was rejected by the adjudicating Commissioner. It is the submission that in both the cases the declared value was rejected by the adjudicating Commissioner and the value was enhanced. 4. He submitted that the Appellant has set up a unit in the Falta Special Economic Zone (FSEZ) and granted the letter of permission dated 22.03.2001. As such they were eligible to import the goods for the production or manufacture of articles for export out of India and availed benefit of Notification No.133/94-CUS on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter their manufacture from the imported inputs on the duty equivalent to the aggregate duty of customs leviable under the Customs Act, it is submitted that as no duty was required to be paid by the Appellant under Notification No.2/95-CE dated 04.01.1995 and in view of the benefit of the said Notification already granted to the Appellant by the adjudicating Commissioner, the differential duty, if any, in view of the enhancement of the value of the imported goods would not have any impact on Revenue. 5. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue submitted that in the present case the officers of DRI on an information that M/s. Nisith Impex Pvt. Ltd . was indulging in under-invoicing of their product i.e. Sony video/audio cassettes, toner and silk fabr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... granted by the Development Commissioner. Since the goods imported had been used for the purposes specified in Clause (a) to (d) or for the purposes of specified in the export import policy in the manner approved by the Development Commissioner as laid down in the said Customs notification they are eligible for full exemption on the impugned goods under Notification No.133/94-CUS. He has cited this Tribunal's judgement in their own case cited (supra) that this Tribunal had set aside the order of the adjudicating Commissioner denying the benefit of Notification No.133/94. However, this order dated 19.11.2007 in Appeal No.CDM/71-72/2004 could not be presented before the adjudicating Commissioner which was passed on 28.11.2007. Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
