9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. Kang, Vice-President]. - Heard both sides. Appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the claim of the appellant that the Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) which was introduced w.e.f. 2-6-98 is not leviable on the goods, which were cleared prior to the introduction of special additional duty of Customs was rejected. 2. Brief fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Adjudicating Authority to decide the issue afresh. 3. The present proceedings are in pursuance to the remand order passed by the Tribunal. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Biecco Lawrie Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta reported in 2002 (139) E.L.T. 193 (Tri.-Kolkata). The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the decision of the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... There is no dispute that where the imported goods are allowed to be warehoused under Section 68 of the Act and are subsequently cleared from the warehouse, the rate as applicable on the date of actual removal of the goods from the warehouse, is applicable. But where the goods are cleared for home consumption under Section 46, the duty payable would be as on the date the goods were cleared for home ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after, the Preventive Officer Charges were discontinued to be levied. Where duty on the warehoused goods is paid and out of charge order for home consumption is made by the proper officer in compliance of the provisions of Section 68, the goods removed in smaller lots have to be treated as cleared for home consumption." 5. In view of the above decision, the impugned order is set aside, however, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
