TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 872X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30% on the premise that the goods were classifiable under Heading 8905.20 and the Customs Notification No. 196/89 shall be applicable and, therefore, the appellant showed readiness for payment of duty at 30%. No doubt, its application under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme was rejected. However, this benefit has been extended by the Tribunal. Once this relief is given by the Tribunal, we are of the view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Notification No. 133/87. The respondent/Department, however, did not release the goods on the basis of the said classification. Before any adjudication could take place about the classification of the imported goods, the appellant filed a suit bearing No. 481/1993 before the Civil Court in which an ex-parte interim injunction was passed restraining the Customs Authorities from causing obstruct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s floating or submersible drilling or production platform . Reply to the show cause notice was filed. According to the Department, the goods were removed without permission from the proper Officer and the same were liable to confiscation under Section 111(j) of the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). After giving hearing to the appellant, the demand in the show cause notice was co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant was entitled to the benefit of another exemption Notification i.e. Customs Notification No. 196/89, according to which concessional rate of duty to be paid at 30%. To this extent benefit is given to the appellant. We are of the opinion that it is not necessary to go into the dispute in detail. Reason is that, during the pendency of proceedings before the Commissioner, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
