9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P-20-70402 and claimed exemption under Sr. No. 363A of Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 and Sr. No. 267A of Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated01.03.2002 claiming concessional rate of duty. Based upon investigation and recording of statements, the appellants were issued SCN dated 31.03.2007 alleging that the goods has been mis-declared by showing them for internal use whereas on going through the catalogue of the imported goods it was observed that the goods are for external use and were thus not covered by the exemption under Sr. No. 363A; that the goods DCD for external use are specifically covered in list 8(C), Sr No.110 of notification for which rate of duty specified was 15% under Sr. No. 94 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned order, however reduced penalty to Rs. 1 lakh. Hence the present appeal. 4. Ms Arti Bhide, Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that they are eligible for exemption in terms of Sr. No.362 of the Notification No.21/2002 and the exemption under Sr. No.363A of the said notification was wrongly claimed by the CHA. She submits that for availing exemption under No.362 they have followed condition no.77 of the said notification and duty exemption certificate in terms of notification was issued by the Director (Medical Education and Public Health) of Bombay Municipal Corporation on 18.03.2002; that the clearing agent was asked to clear the consignment vide their letter dated 10.10.2005 and the said DEC certificate was enclosed. She submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We find that it is not in disputed that the imported goods are exempted i.e eligible for concessional rate of duty under the said notification albeit under different serial number than cited by the CHA in Bill of Entry and the Appellant is eligible for the exemption. The wrong serial number of notification mentioned during filling of Bill of Entry was not intended. In such case it was not an intentional act of evading duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the exemption available to external DCD on the ground that the DEC certificate was not produced at the time of importation of goods. We find that the identity and nature of goods is not in dispute. Even though assuming that the duty exemption certificate was not produced at the tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
