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 appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 124/87-Cus for the imported goods when the notification had already been rescinded before import.
Analysis: The only substantive question was whether the claimed exemption notification continued to apply on the date of import. The notification relied upon stood rescinded by Notification No. 175/89 dated 29.05.1989, whereas the goods were imported on 03.10.1989. Once the exemption notification had ceased to operate before the relevant import, the claimed benefit could not be extended.
Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 124/87-Cus and the appeal failed.