9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent : Shri Bharat Raichandani, Adv ORDER Per M V Ravindran This appeal is filed by the revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.91/2009/MCH /AC /CRS/09-10 dated 13/04/2009. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the refund of the amount of Customs Duty paid by the respondent in excess. 4. The respondent had filed two bills of entry and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0) ELT A308 (SC) and Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 2000 (120) ELT 285 (SC). On an appeal the first appellate authority set aside the impugned order by the extending the benefit of notification no. 21/2002 and 56/2008. 6. The grounds of appeal as put up by the learned departmental representative and in the appeal memoranda indicate that the revenue is aggrieved by order only on the ground that respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is operational into the customs was not updated to extend benefit of notification 56/2008 to the product imported. 8. On such a factual matrix, we find the respondent has sought amendment to bills of entry as per the provisions of section 149 and/or 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 which was not responded to. We find that the eligible benefit of the notification could not be extended to assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
