TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 25-5-1977 S.S. Vishva Ajay and Bill of Entry No. 185/15 of 22-4-1977 s.s. Rudolf. The plea for assessment at the concessional rate was disallowed by Order dated 5-6-1978, on the ground that the imports had taken place under Project Import regulations, as contemplated by Tariff Item 84.65 of the Customs Tariff Act and, as such, the case being of a concessional import under a specific provision of the CTA; the importers were not further entitled to claim concession under a notification. 2. On an appeal being filed before the Appellate Collector, whereby the appellants had reiterated their claim for concessional assessment @ 25%, the Appellate Collector rejected the same on an altogether different ground; namely, that the import in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable and that the law was now settled beyond dispute to the effect that so far as bonded goods are concerned, the relevant date for considering the rate of duty is as prevailing on the date of removal of the goods from the bonded warehouse in terms of Section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act. He quoted in this connection, besides others, the judgment of Bombay High Court, reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 644, in the case of Apar Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Others. He, therefore, contended that apart from the fact that the Appellate Collector had gone absolutely wrong in rejecting the appeal on a new ground which was never put to the appellants, the order was not sustainable on merits also. Shri J. Gopinath, SDR, did not have any comments to off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled to the Supreme Court or not. On this request, about a week s time was given for this puropse. 6. Today, on the appeal being taken up, Shri J. Gopinath Informed the Bench that the decision in the case, referred to above, had been fully accepted by the Government of India and acted upon; and that no appeal had been filed, or directed to be filed, to the Supreme Court. In face of this statement, Shri Gujral pressed for the appeal being allowed, on similar terms, on the basis of the judgment of the Tribunal which had become final. 7. We have given our careful thought to the matter, and we are of our considered view that in view of the position stated by the learned SDR, and also considering the wording of the notification under refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
