9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hennai vide Bill of Entry dated 06.07.1999 and 02.08.1999. At the time of import the appellant claimed the benefit of Notification No.20/99-Cus dated 28.02.1999. They claimed the benefit under Sl.No.169 of the Notification which granted duty free import in respect of goods specified which were required for construction of roads, subject to satisfying condition 75 of the Notification. The condition specified is reproduced below: "75. If- (a) The goods are imported by- (i) The Ministry of Surface Transport, or (ii) A person who has awarded a contract for the construction of roads in India by or on behalf of the Ministry of Surface Transport, by the National Highway Authority of India, by Public Works Department of a State Government or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty paid, which stands rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, Customs. Through the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of such refund claim. Aggrieved by the decision of the rejection of the refund, the present appeal has been filed. 4. Shri J.P.Khaitan, Ld. Sr.Advocate on behalf of the appellant argued the following points; i) The equipments for road construction were imported by the appellant under the Notification No.20/99-Cus ibid. The necessary undertaking as per the Notification was also furnished. He emphasized the fact that the appellant imported the equipments for use in the contracts received by them from Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport as well as Roads Department of Tamilnadu. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of five years period, he submitted that the impugned order may be sustained. 6. We heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 7. The dispute in the present case is regarding the interpretation of the Notification No.20/99-Cus and in particular Condition No.75, subject to which the appellant had originally imported equipments required for road construction. It is not in dispute that the appellant imported the goods for use in road construction projects for which the appellant procured contracts from Ministry of Surface Transport as well as from Govt. of Tamilnadu. The demand for customs duty has been raised in view of the fact that the goods were sent to Bangladesh before the completion of the five years period specified in conditio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
