Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether interim stay of the impugned orders should be granted, and whether the matter concerning exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. should be referred to the Larger Bench.
Analysis: The Tribunal accepted the respondents' contention that the notification turns on the machine's capacity to lay bituminous pavement of 7 metres and above, not on the physical width of the equipment alone. On the material placed, the catalogue indicated a maximum pave width of 10 metres, supporting the view that the machine met the notification requirement. However, since a Coordinate Bench had taken a different view in an earlier matter, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to seek determination by a Larger Bench on the exemption question.
Conclusion: Interim stay of the impugned orders was declined, and the exemption issue was directed to be placed before the Larger Bench for decision.