9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4-2-2011 rejected the C.M.A. No. 3195 of 2010, and M.P. No. 1 of 2010 filed by Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai against the CESTAT Final Order 407/2009, dated 8-4-2009 as reported in 2009 (241) E.L.T. 280 (Tri. - Chennai) (Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner). While rejecting the appeal, the High Court passed the following Judgment : The Commissioner of Customs (Imports) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods for purposes of assessment. 4. Keeping the above provision in mind, when we examined the order of the Tribunal impugned in this Appeal, we find that the Tribunal was considering the question as to what was the rate of duty applicable to the case on hand, whether it should be the one which was prevailing on the date when the goods were actually cleared. 5. To narrate the fact in brief, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the issue is not really relating to the rate of duty, but as to the date of removal from the bonded warehouse, having regard to the facts noted above and the conclusion of the Tribunal, there can be no two opinions that the issue is primarily related to the applicable rate of duty. Once the said conclusion is inevitable, there is no difficulty in holding that the remedy if any available to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
