TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 4-1-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vide which he had affirmed the differential amount of additional duty of customs (in short 'CVD') of Rs. 1,51,696/- against them. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants imported vide B/E No. 111706, dated 17-10-1997 brass scrap by classifying under Tariff Hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicated the show cause notice confirmed the duty demand. Through the order-in-appeal, that order had been affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). 3. We have heard both the sides. 4. The learned Counsel has not contested the duty liability of Rs. 1,51,696/- as he has fairly conceded that the benefit of exemption Notification No. 67/97 was not available to the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under - I observe from the records submitted before me that the appellants had submitted an end use Bond No. 319/1997, dated 25-10-1997 with supporting Bank Guarantee before clearance of goods imported vide B/E No. 111706, dated 17-10-1997. Since the conditions of the bonds were to be complied subsequently, hence the assessment was not made under Section 17 of Customs Act, 1962 but under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised well within the period of six months from the date of cancellation of the bond and bank guarantee on 3-4-1998. No other ground has been raised before us for challenging the validity of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. In the light of the discussion made above, we uphold the impugned order-in-appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismiss the appeal of the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|