9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions - Held that:- as regulation no. 7 was not in the statute when the goods were imported, hence it cannot be pressed into service for denying the benefit of project import regulation to the appellant. Therefore, appellant is eligible for benefit of reduced custom duty. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief - Appeal No. C/982/2004 - - - Dated:- 8-1-2016 - M V Ravindran, M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the revenue that after clearing the goods under project imports, appellants has not complied with the conditions No. 7 of project import regulations. Coming to such a conclusion adjudicating authority enforced the bond and confirmed the demand of ₹ 8,40,000/-. The first appellate authority also concurred with the views of the adjudicating authority. 4. We find from records that the main ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CUS dated 7/1/92. It is the case of the appellant that this condition could not have been invoked by the revenue to deny the benefit of project import regulations. We agree with the contentions put forth by the Counsel for appellant, as we note regulation number 7 was not in the statute when the goods were imported, hence it cannot be pressed into service for denying the benefit of project import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. There is no evidence to show that the equipment has not been installed. Revenue could have deputed some officer to verify the facts. Moreover, when the concession is sought to be denied, an opportunity to Show Cause and also a personal hearing should have been given. Thus, there is violation of the principles of natural justice. In these circumstances, the impugned order has no merit. Taking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
