2007 (4) TMI 740

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... _____ Per S.S.Kang: Heard both sides. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of ₹ 22.49 lakhs. The applicant had already deposited an amount of ₹ 10 lakhs at the time of hearing of the appeal by the Commissioner(Appeals). 2. In this case the benefit of Notification No.63/95-CE dt.16.3.95 was denied to the applicants. The contention of the applicant is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ith roller bearing axle box assembly supplied by the applicant. The contention is that these invoices and certificates are not before the lower authority. The contention is that as the goods were ultimately supplied by M/s. BEML to the Min. of Defence, therefore, applicants are entitled for benefit of notification. In these circumstances, we find that as the applicant produced invoices as well as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X