9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Connectors. They were availing the duty exemption in terms of Customs Notification No. 25/99 Cus dated 28.2.99 and No. 25/02 Cus. dated 28.2.2002. They were importing capital goods, which had been cleared by the Customs after payment of concessional rates of customs in terms of the said Notifications, on the basis of the applications as prescribed unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities that they have not used the inputs and the capital goods for manufacture of their final products, which were exported. It is his submission that in the like case on a similar allegation, this Bench has dismissed the Revenue appeal in the case of CCE, Bangalore v. Electronic Research Ltd. as reported In . He submits that the issue is covered on all fours and hence, the appeal be allowed. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se is not proper and legal and the same is set aside by allowing the appeal E/424/2005 6. In this case the appellant had prayed for permission from the Commissioner to clear the goods to the job worker for carrying out certain activity on the goods which were required to be exported or for domestic purpose. The Commissioner denied the permission to remove the goods to the job worker premises. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t; should be interpreted to mean the factory where the importer wants to utilize the imported goods in terms of the Notification. It has been held that the department cannot insist on ownership of the factory and deny registration for the purpose of the Notification. The Tribunal has relied on the ruling of Bangalore Bench rendered in the case of CCE, Bangalore v. Electronic Research Ltd., (supra) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
