9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 997 - Held that: - Relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Saptagiri Leathers Vs. CC, Chennai [2002 (12) TMI 338 - CEGAT, CHENNAI], the Commissioner (Appeals) held that there is no violation of the import conditions by the respondent - there is no violation of the conditions of concessional import by the respondents - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/90/2010 - 42933/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notification. On verification of accounts of the respondent, the Revenue entertained a view that the respondents are using substantial items which are domestically procured and that is against the purported intention of exemption envisaged in the above rules and notification. In other words, the Revenue held a view that the condition of value addition cannot be achieved if significant portion of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent. The value addition could not be determined properly when substantial items are locally procured. He also relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut-1994 (73) ELT 497 (S.C). 4. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the impugned order has examined the legal provisions and it has cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Apex Court has been examined in the impugned order. Relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Saptagiri Leathers Vs. CC, Chennai - 2003 (153) ELT 559 (Tri.-Chen.), the Commissioner (Appeals) held that there is no violation of the import conditions by the respondent. He also note that the Hon ble High Court in the case of Sujag Fine Chemicals (India) Ltd. (supra) held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
