9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (1) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puty Collector penalised the petitioners by holding that they had misdeclared certain fabrics as Fents and cleared them without payment of duty. This order of the Deputy Collector was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. 3. The petitioners have contended that the goods in question were bona fide cut pieces and were slightly damaged and as such they could ought therefore to be conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y have stated that it is the department s case that the petitioners cleared ten cases of fabrics each case containing 200 pieces of uniform length of 1.1. L.M. and that out of these 10 cases, 3 cases were delivered to M/s. Near East Trading Company, Bombay and the remaining seven cases were despatched to M/s. N H. Bhatta of Bombay. From the premises of M/s. Near East Trading Company two cases of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not be demanded from them. Govt. observe that leviability to duty and demanded for duty are two different matters. Govt. have already held in para 3 above as also in the case of M/s. Near East Trading Company on their revision application vide Order in F. No. 195/B/5/61/76-CX. V that the goods were not eligible for benefit of Notification 80/69 and that these therefore attracted duty. Having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
