https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241578 Imports cleared under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. were subject to Condition 5 and the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996. Under Rule 8, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise was the authority to monitor end-use compliance and to initiate recovery under Section 28 of the Customs Act on breach of the notification conditions. A show-cause notice issued instead by the Commissioner of Customs was therefore treated as lacking the requisite competence, creating a strong prima facie case for the applicants and supporting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery during the appeals. en-us Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Dec 2013 13:04:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241578 Imports cleared under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. were subject to Condition 5 and the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996. Under Rule 8, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise was the authority to monitor end-use compliance and to initiate recovery under Section 28 of the Customs Act on breach of the notification conditions. A show-cause notice issued instead by the Commissioner of Customs was therefore treated as lacking the requisite competence, creating a strong prima facie case for the applicants and supporting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery during the appeals. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241578