9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th regard to correct liability of appellant - C/254-255/2004 - 1018 & 1019/2007 - Dated:- 3-9-2007 - [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This Bench, passed the Final Order Nos. 324 to 329/2007 dated 6-3-2007. In the said Final Order, the appeal Nos. C/254/2004 and C/255/2004 were dismissed in view of the fact that the appellants and their Counsels did not present themselves at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the letter was delivered in the Assistant Registrar's office on 2-3-2007. Subsequent to their letter dated 28-2-2007, they did not receive any communication from the office of the CESTAT. Instead, they received the Final Order dated 6-3-2007 on 24-4-2007. (ii) In view of the above, it is submitted that the full grounds in Memorandum of Appeal filed by the applicants were not considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (75) E.L.T. 242 (Delhi). (iv) Assuming that the conditions of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 were not fulfilled, the appellant is entitled for benefit of Notification No. 65/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988, which provides the Effective Rate of duty at 40% for most of the items imported by the appellants. This Notification does not impose any conditions. (v) It was contended that in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y liability requires to be recomputed. Since the Commissioner has not examined the applicability of the said Notification, the impugned order deserves to be set aside for de novo adjudication with regard to the correct liability of the appellant in terms of Notification No. 65/88-Cus. 3.1. The appellants had stated that they accorded free treatment to 40% of the out patients and reservation of 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d allow his appeal. 4. Summing up, (i) We recall the Final Order and restore the appeals C/254/2004 and C/255/2004 to their original numbers; (ii) We set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner dated 26-2-2004. (iii) The matter is remanded to the Commissioner only for re-computation of the duty liability in terms of Notification No. 65/88-Cus dated 1-3-1988, which provides 40% effect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
