9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is aggrieved with Orders-in-Appeals Nos. 24 and 25/01-Cus., dated 5-9-2005 confirming the imposition of Special Additional Duty (SAD). The ground raised by the Counsel is that when the goods were imported, the said SAD had not been introduced. The imported machinery was purchased from China during the period 1995 to1997 and had deposited the same in a warehouse under Into-bond Bills of Entry. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after the date of import. He relies on the judgments of the Tribunal rendered in the following cases : (i) DCW Limited v. CC, Trichy reported in 2002 (147) E.L.T. 1003 (ii) M.K.P. Fashions v. CC, Kol. (Port) reported in 2004 (174) E.L.T. 45 (Tri.) = 2005 (99) ECC 223 (iii) VBC Industries Ltd. v. CC, Chennai reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 872 (Tri.) (iv) CC, Coc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the light of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of LML Limited, which is still in force. The Apex Court while admitting assessee's plea has not stayed the operation of the Tribunal's order, which was passed by the Hon'ble President. The finding recorded by the President Bench in the assessee's own case in Final Order No. 417/04 in Para 4 is reproduced here below : "4. We find merit i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is that date which is relevant for the purposes of the rate of customs duty and any additional duty thereon. In the present cases, on the dates on which the goods were cleared from the bonded warehouses the special additional duty, introduced on 1st June, 1998 was already in existence and the assessee was correctly made liable to pay the same." In view of the above, we hold that the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
