9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant to pay the amount of duty chargeable and imposition of penalty solely on account of retention of the goods in the warehouse beyond the periods specified in the warehousing licence - The impugned order has solely considered non-compliance with N/N. 13/81-Cus dated 9th February 1981 for upholding the order of the original authority as the detriment to the appellant has been determined on the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovision under section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962. On the second occasion, failure to comply with condition of pre-deposit was challenged before the Tribunal and the matter was remanded after waiver of pre-deposit vide order dated 21 st June 2005. 2. Appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) which had imported polystrol K-427D, a plastic raw material, vide bill of entry no. 15712 dated 30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iable for duty and consequential penalty. 3. Heard learned Authorised Representative. On behalf of the appellant, their inability to attend the hearing and unrepresented was communicated. However, this matter being old and easily resolved, the matter is taken up for disposal. 4. After having perused all the records, as well as the impugned order, it is seen that the levy of duty as well as i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02 After hearing rival submissions and perusal of case records, we remand the matter to the Adjudicating authority for considering the claim of the appellants that the goods were cleared from the warehouse to the E.O.U. and therefore they remain exempt under Notification No. 13-Cus dated 09/02/1981 subject to conditions stipulated therein. 5. The impugned order has solely considered non- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
