9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal C/73- 74/04-C. 2. The Respondent appears to have imported some copper and claimed exemption from payment of countervailing duty under Exemption Notification No. 4/1997 dated 1st March, 1997. 3. The Revenue was of the view that the Respondent was not entitled to the benefit and accordingly a show cause notice dated 14th A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e exemption. 4. The Respondent replied to the show cause notice but by an adjudication order dated 17th November, 1998, the demand against the Respondent was confirmed. 5. Feeling aggrieved the Respondent preferred an appeal which was taken up for consideration by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal). In his appellate order dated 30th October, 2003 the Commissioner of Customs took the view t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. 6. It was contended that the Respondent was not put to notice with regard to non-compliance of Condition No.22 in the exemption Notification and, therefore, the Appellate Authority was not correct in concluding that the Respondent was liable to pay countervailing duty because of non-compliance of Condition No.22 mentioned in the Notification. It was submitted that a completely new case was m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed counsel for the Revenue and we find that there is no error that has been committed by the Tribunal in taking the view that it did. The question whether the copper imported by the Petitioner was refined or wrought or unrefined and unwrought appears to have been given up by the Revenue at least before the first Appellate Authority and that is why the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) decided again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
