9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of the opinion that the appeal itself can be disposed of. Accordingly, the requirement for pre-deposit is waived and we proceed to dispose of the appeal. 3.This dispute had come before us earlier and under a remand order dated 6-2-2004, we had directed the lower authority to redetermine the duty liability after considering the appellant's claim for exemption under notification No. 9/2000 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited Rs. 14,550/- vide R.G. 23 A-Pt-11 Entry No. 100 dated 19-3-2001. It is, therefore, observed that on the same analogy, in respect of other AR3s, of course, the party is required to pay the same duty amount which was indicated on each AR3, of course, taking into account the Maruti Udyog Ltd. citation supra. This view also gains strength from the CT-3 No. NEPZ/CT-3/1347/99/1499 dated. 8-3-2000 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I, thus, observe that the party was not eligible for such exemption as has been claimed by the Learned Counsel at the time of personal hearing. 11.Similarly, regarding the clearance of goods over and above quantity mentioned in the relevant CT-3, the party is liable to pay duty as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the Maruti Udyog case supra. As such, taking the value of such clearances being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merely because a higher rate of duty was mentioned, erroneously, in the CT-3 certificate. The submission is that Rule 173N specifically provides that "Consignor shall pay the duty leviable for the consignment" and this leaves no room for doubt on the rate of duty. 7.The appellant's contention is required to be accepted. Rule specifically provides that in the event of (as in the present case) fai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
