2013 (12) TMI 1481

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r of application. - Therefore, the alleged admission cannot be accepted to change the law. Hence, there is no element of law involved in the appeal. - Decided against Revenue. - Central Excise Appeal No. 52 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 20-12-2013 - Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ORDER The appeal was kept pending from 2007 for admission. It is preferred against the judgment and or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... entry, was issued on 16-2-2004, the Customs Authorities were not aware of the same. Hence, they permitted the clearances of the impugned goods without raising any objection. Further the appellants had complied with the requirement of Rule 18(2) of the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989. In the light of these facts, there is no deliberate violation of Notification by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hich has been prohibited under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and all the provisions of that Act shall have effect accordingly. In view of the above, legally the Commissioner s order confiscating the impugned goods under Section 111(d) read with [Sections] 3(2) and 3(3) of the FTDR is not correct. Hence, the impugned order has no merits and the same is set aside. Thus, we allo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X