9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esearch Centre [ 2001 (8) TMI 113 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] it is held that provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act were not attracted because the said section covers cases of duty not levied, short levied or erroneously refunded etc. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal requires to be set aside as there was no question of complying with the provisions of Section 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted the goods and cleared them at nil duty on the basis of the Notification No. 64/88-Customs, dated 1-3-1988. A show cause notice was issued on 17-9-1998 on the ground that respondent was not complying with the post importation conditions laid down by the notification for the import of goods at nil rate of duty, namely, free service at least to 40% of the outdoor patients etc. A contention was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endered by this Court in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Jagdish Cancer and Research Centre - (2001) 6 SCC 483. 5. In the aforesaid decision, this Court specifically held that in such cases provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act were not attracted because the said section covers cases of duty not levied, short levied or erroneously refunded etc. Hence, the impugned judgment an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
