2014 (12) TMI 578

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sultant JUDGEMENT Per: P R Chandrasekharan: The appeal filed by the Revenue arises from Order-in-Appeal No. SVS/123/NGP-C/2006 23/03/2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur. 2. Vide the impugned order, the learned lower appellate authority set aside the order dated 31/08/2001 passed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, allowing credit of Rs. 25,21 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it beyond the period of six months is not permissible. 3.2 The learned Dy. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum. 4. The learned Consultant for the respondent submits that there is no dispute in this case that the appellant did receive the goods or the customs duty payments were made. In fact, as can be seen from the impugned order, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for upholding the impugned order and dismissing the Revenue's appeal. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. A reading of the impugned order makes it absolutely clear that the Customs authorities at Chennai have confirmed payment of duty by the appellant at the time of importation of the capital goods. It is also not in dispute that the appellant had received .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X