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 the importers were entitled to refund or exemption under Notification No. 80/70-Cus. dated 29-8-1970 in respect of replacement spare parts imported for defective battery cells.
Analysis: The notification applied only where the earlier imported defective articles were the private personal property of the importers, the replacement was imported within the warranty period, the replacement was supplied free of charge by the foreign manufacturer in accordance with warranty practice, and the repairs or replacement were done free of charge by the manufacturer through his agent or branch in India. On the facts, the original goods were not private personal properties, and the replacement was made directly by the foreign supplier rather than through an agent or branch in India. The conditions of the exemption were therefore not satisfied.
Conclusion: The claim for refund or exemption failed and was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed because the appellants did not establish compliance with the mandatory conditions of the exemption notification.
Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be satisfied strictly according to its express conditions, and relief cannot be granted where the stipulated requirements are not met.