9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed. Subsequently, the respondent was asked to submit certain documents and Reconciliation Statement. Respondent submitted Reconciliation Statement along with certain documents. However, the adjudicating authority denied the benefit of Project Import Regulation 1986, and confirmed the differential duty demand and imposed penalty. Aggrieved by the order-in-original dt. 13.2.2006, the respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). They have submitted certain documents along with the Reconciliation Statement to Commissioner (Appeals) also on going through the said documents Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal. Therefore the Revenue is before me. 3. Shri M.K. Mall Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement by the appellant. The show cause notice dated 07.10.05 appears to be a mere repetition of the earlier show cause notice demanding the same documents for re-conciliation of the same statements. There is also no reference or mention as to whether the earlier re-conciliation statement submitted by the appellants were satisfactory and if not what the short-comings were. It is also mentioned in the impugned order-in-original that the appellants had submitted the re-conciliation statement vide their letter dated 03.04.98 but minus the remaining documents required under Project Import Regulations, 1986. This finding of the original authority is clearly based on wrong presumptions. As can be seen from the operational Regulation 7 reproduced a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r format, even while there was no prescribed proper format, in existence. In the face of these above mentioned authenticated statement it cannot but be concluded that the goods which were imported under the Project Import Scheme have been duly re-conciled as having been utilized for the purpose they were imported. It would be perverse to deny the facility on the ground as stated in the impugned order-in-original that some specific documents such as original triplicate ex-bond bills of entry or an installation certificate had not been submitted. In any case as observed above, there is no sanctity for insistence on certain specific documents which have not been specified in the Regulations. In view of the above observations, the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
