9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he benefit of Notification No.52/2003-Cus. dated 31.3.2003. Revenue proposed to deny the exemption on the ground that the re-import had taken place after the stipulated time period of one year. The adjudicating authority denied the exemption in the original order dated 22.5.2007. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by learned AR and perusal of the record, I find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for allowing the appeal of the respondent has given the following finding:- "A careful study of the case of the case of Kar Mobiles Ltd. decided by the Hon'ble CESTAT reveals that the overriding emphasis in the order was that the delay in re-import is only a technical lapse; that in any case the Board's circul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The appellant have pleaded that the conditions of notification No.53/97 are similar to the conditions of the notification No.52/03 in this case and therefore the judgment would apply to their case too. This authority in appeal is inclined to agree with this contention and hereby endorses the same. The appellants have also made the point that they were in any case entitled to the benefit of notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
