Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Uniworth Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Raipur

2016 (2) TMI 178 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Import of capital goods - exemption Notification No. 53/97 - installation of the machinery within one year - the bill of entry in this case was filed on 27.10.1997 and at that time there was no provision in the Notification No. 53/1997-Cus. dated 3.6.1997 that the goods imported there under should be installed within the period of one year - Held that:- the goods after import were warehoused at the Nagpur unit of the appellant which is other than the unit in respect of which the LOP was issued. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

amendments.

Thus, there is prima facie some rationale behind the primary adjudicating authority applying conditions of the Notification No. 53/1997-Cus as amended (as applicable on the date of such transfer) which contained the requirement of installation of the goods within the prescribed period.

The appellant has not been able to make out a good case for complete waiver of pre-deposit - stay granted partly. - C/Stay/51852/2014 in C/51531/2014-CU(DB) - Stay Order No. 5372 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and penalty. 2. Ld. Advocate for the appellant stated that this is second round of litigation. In the earlier round CESTAT vide Final Order No. C/ 227-229/2011 dated 19.5.2011 inter alia, observed as under : 7. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the adjudicating authority has imposed penalty on the appellant company under Section 140 of the Customs Act, 1962 which is totally incorrect as the said Section deals with prosecution and consequences there .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and keeping all the issues open, we set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice. The ld. Advocate further contended that : (i) The bill of entry in this case was filed on 27.10.1997 and at that time there was no provision in the Notification No. 53/1997-Cus. dated 3.6.1997 that the goods imported there under should b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d the import took place in November 1997 and therefore the provisions of Notification No. 53/1997-Cus. as it existed then should be applied. 3. The ld. DR, on the other hand, reiterated the ground of the impugned order. 4. We have considered the contentions of both sides. It is a fact that import of the goods took place in November 1997 and bill of entry for warehousing was filed on 27.11.1997 and that point of time there was no provision in Notification No. 53/1997-Cus requiring installation of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version