9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) [Order per: Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. -1. The demand of duty of Rs.2,59,939/- stands confirmed against the appellant along with confirmation of interest, by denying them the benefit of Notification No.1l0/95-Cus., which provides concessional rate of duty of 15%, on the ground that the condition No. 6 of the notification not get satisfied by the appellant. 2. We have heard both sides and also seen said notification. The same provides concessional rate of duty in respect of the capital goods required for manufacture or production of goods and for other purposes enumerated in the said notification, subject to fulfilment of certain conditions annexed thereto. The relevant conditi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said notification, goods installed in the laboratory should be considered as having been installed in the factory premises. He also submits that subsequent to the objection raised by the Customs, the appellant approached the Foreign Trade Development Officer, Office of the Jt. Director General of Foreign Trade, Ahmedabad, who vide his letter dt. 18-1-02 has modified the import licence. He also assails the impugned order on limitation. 5. After hearing the learned SDR, who reiterates the findings of the authorities below, we find that one of the condition for extending the benefit of Notification No.110/95, admittedly does not stand fulfilled by the appellant. The concessional rate of duty under the notification is dependent upon the fulfil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the laboratory. In any case, issuance of licence by DGFT is one of the Conditions of the notification (Condition No. 1), which stands fulfilled by the appellant. To examine the availability of the Customs notification is the job of the Custom officer and as such, the condition annexed to notification cannot be diluted even by the DGFT. 8. In view of the above, we uphold the findings of the lower authorities. 9. It has also been contended before us that the demand is barred by limitation, show cause notice having been issued beyond the normal period of 6 months. We find that the imports were made in terms of bonds entered into by the appellant. As per the condition No. 6, the installation has to be completed within a period of 6 month ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
