9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds imported, duty free in terms of the said notification, have been, in fact, exported out of country within the stipulated period of the said notification. Bill of entry needs to be amended to find out the position of appellant as the importer of goods - appeal allowed – duty and penalty not to be imposed – decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 3696 of 2012 - Final Order No. 52669/2016 - Dated:- 29-7-2016 - Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President and Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Rep. by Ms. Nupur Maheshwari, Advocate for the appellant Rep. by Sh. Govind Dixit, DR for the Respondent ORDER The appeal is against order dated 24.08.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), A.C.C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harti in connection with Commonwealth Games, 2010. The Bill of Entry in the present case mentions the appellant s name also alongwith M/s Doordarshan - Prasar Bharti, for import of goods. Ld. Counsel strongly contested the findings of the lower authority. She drew our attention to the fact that the consignee in the airway bill was Prasar Bharti; CHA was appointed by Prasar Bharti; undertaking has been given by appellant on behalf of the Prasar Bharti; even at the time of re-export of the impugned goods the name Prasar Bharti is mentioned in all the documents. The admitted fact of the case is that the impugned goods have been imported by/ on behalf of Prasar Bharti; used in the broadcasting of Commonwealth Games, 2010 and have been re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interim period categorically brings out the intention of the Government for allowing the duty free import of these goods during the material period. Further, we find the reliance placed by Ld. DR on Tribunal s decision in G.L. Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi - 2015 (315) ELT 39 (Tri. Del.) is not appropriate. There the appellant was not one of the entities eligible for exemption. The Tribunal also held that the amendment in notification cannot be held retrospective. In the present case it is clear that Prasar Bharti is directly involved in the import, use and re-expose of impugned goods. 5. In view of the above discussions and analysis we find no merit in the impugned order and accordingly set-aside the same. The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
