TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-Cus. (serial No.239) applicable or not? - Held that: - The goods as declared by them, were subjected to examination by the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India and vide letter No.TBVV/F/VAS-GEN/01.TEC/05 dated 31.5.2005 specifically stated that the goods imported do not seem to be Cellular Repeater or Router. The benefit of N/N. 21/2002 (serial No.239) is only for Cellular Repea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C (ADJ) dated 3.10.2006. 2. Appellant-importer as well as the Revenue are aggrieved by the impugned order. Since all the appeals are directed against the very same order-in-original, they are being disposed of by a common order. 3. None appeared on behalf of the appellant-importer nor there is any request for adjournment. Since the matters are of 2007, we take up the same for disposal. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erits for the demand of differential duty. Adjudicating authority, after following the principles of natural justice, upheld the demand of differential duty with interest, confiscated the goods and allowed redemption of the same on payment of redemption fine and imposed penalty on the importer as well as on the individual. The appellants are aggrieved by the said order. Revenue is aggrieved by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Router. In the absence of any other technical data supporting the claim of the importer that the goods imported by them are Cellular Repeater or Router, we have to hold that as the letter of Department of Telecommunications is categorically stating that the goods imported are not Cellular Repeater or Router, hence appellant is not eligible for the benefit of Notification No.21/2002. In view of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
