2004 (10) TMI 120

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he appellant filed these appeals against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. In this case the demand was confirmed in respect of three machines which were imported by the appellant, who is 100% EOU by availing the benefit of Notification No. 53/97-Cus., dated 3-6-1997. The condition of the notification is that the machine is to be installed or otherwise used withi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s are used by the appellant in the manufacture of the goods. The contention is also that the appellant applied for extension of period as provided under the notification. The Supdt's letter dated 28-2-2004 informed the appellant that request for extension is not accepted by the Commissioner of Central Excise. 4. The contention is that there is a provision under the notification for extension of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fication was not procedural and all the conditions are to be strictly followed. We find that the Notification No. 53/97-Cus., dated 3-6-1997 provides that the machines imported, after availing the benefit of this notification, are to be installed or used in the manufacture of goods within one year or the time extended by the AC/DC or that the Dy. Commissioner can extend the time for five years. Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X