https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244321 Imported capital goods under Notification No. 32/2005-Cus. were required to be installed within six months or within an extended period allowed by the customs authority. Installation certificates issued after the import period supported a prima facie inference that extension had been granted, so alleged non-compliance with the notification did not by itself justify denial of interim relief. The Revenue's objection based on drawback was not decisive because drawback was not part of the show-cause notice and there was no categorical finding that it had actually been taken. The pre-deposit of duty and penalty was therefore dispensed with and stay was granted unconditionally. en-us Mon, 12 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Feb 2014 04:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244321 Imported capital goods under Notification No. 32/2005-Cus. were required to be installed within six months or within an extended period allowed by the customs authority. Installation certificates issued after the import period supported a prima facie inference that extension had been granted, so alleged non-compliance with the notification did not by itself justify denial of interim relief. The Revenue's objection based on drawback was not decisive because drawback was not part of the show-cause notice and there was no categorical finding that it had actually been taken. The pre-deposit of duty and penalty was therefore dispensed with and stay was granted unconditionally. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 12 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244321