9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .T. 644 (Bom.)] respectively contending inter alia that on the date when the goods were bonded, the goods were exempt under Notification dated 2-8-1976, though the exemption was later on withdrawn on 1-3-1979. The issue was what the relevant date for levy of duty - date of bonding or date when the bill of entry is presented or the date when the goods were removed from the warehouse. The said issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was held that the relevant date for levy of duty is when the bill of entry is presented or the date when the goods were removed from the bonded warehouse. The Full Bench decision was overruled. Pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court the demand notices have been served upon the petitioners. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Customs department had not challeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore the impugned notice issued by the department was not legal and valid. It is not possible for this Court to entertain this submission as the matter now stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in United India Ors. v. Apart Pvt. Ltd. Anr. [1999 (112) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = JT 1999 (5) SC 160]. The petitioners are free to approach the Supreme Court for appropriate clarification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
