9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent : Shri Ranjan Khanna, D.R. ORDER PER R.K. SINGH: Stay application along with appeal is filed against order-in- original dated 25.11.2013 in terms of which custom duty demand of Rs. 1,88,26,572/- pertaining to the period November, 1997 to March 2005 was confirmed along with interest and penalty. 2. Ld. Advocate for the appellant stated that this is second round of litigation. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er is incorrect, need to be set aside and the matter needs to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and keeping all the issues open, we set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice." The ld. Advocate further c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification No. 53/1997-Cus. as it existed then should be applied. 3. The ld. DR, on the other hand, reiterated the ground of the impugned order. 4. We have considered the contentions of both sides. It is a fact that import of the goods took place in November 1997 and bill of entry for warehousing was filed on 27.11.1997 and that point of time there was no provision in Notification No. 53/1997- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondition of installation of goods during the prescribed time was also added. The transfer of goods from Nagpur unit to the Raipur unit for which LOP was issued took place after such amendments. Thus, there is prima facie some rationale behind the primary adjudicating authority applying conditions of the Notification No. 53/1997-Cus as amended (as applicable on the date of such transfer) which cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
