9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of importation wherein duty forgone under the claim of said Notification was ₹ 78,53,643/-. It appeared to Revenue that under Rule 8 of said Rule 8,254 Nos. of LCD Panels were not accounted for by the appellant and therefore ₹ 78,53,643/- was recoverable from appellant u/r 8 of the said Rules. Held that: - for the period subsequent to the period of SCN the said Rules were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER The present appeal is preferred against the Order-in-Original No. 50/COMMISSIONER/NOIDA/2012-13 DATED 24.12.2012. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellants got themselves registered with the jurisdictional Central Excise officers under Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 w.e.f. 17.07.2009 and executed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... els on which the exemption under the said Notification was allowed at the time of importation wherein duty forgone under the claim of said Notification was ₹ 78,53,643/-. It appeared to Revenue that under Rule 8 of said Rule 8,254 Nos. of LCD Panels were not accounted for by the appellant and therefore ₹ 78,53,643/- was recoverable from appellant under Rule 8 of the said Rules. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which concessional rate duty was paid are used for the purpose which their import was intended. He has further submitted that the goods which were re-exported without any use should be treated as if the same were never imported and should be treated as accounted for and the provisions of Rule 8 for recovery are not invocable in respect of such re-exported goods. 4. Learned D.R. has relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
