2017 (11) TMI 357

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ORDER Per: D.N. Panda Appellant says that the goods imported by it duty free under Notification No.53/97-Cus dated 3.6.1997 were meant for use in manufacture. But such goods could not be used becoming redundant due to amalgamation of the appellant with Lipton India Exports Ltd. It had no motive to import the goods duty free and make that unusable. It suffered loss due to scraping the goods for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... etition No.575 of 2005, appellant should not be dragged to litigation. 3. To support is contentions, appellant relies on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. - 1988 (14) ECR 292 (SC), holding that the goods meant for use as appearing in the concerned Notification does not defeat the purpose of law when that becomes unusable for no reason attributable to the importer. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n of electrical energy, the phraseology used in the exemption clause would have been difference as, for example, "goods actually used" or "goods used". 4. Revenue on the other hand submits that the duty foregone is around Rs. 3 lakhs and when the goods imported for use in manufacture were not used, importer has to pay the duty. 5. Facts above demonstrates that appellant had faced repeated litig .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X