1987 (5) TMI 256

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hy the order-in-appeal noted above should not be annulled. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that trie respondent imported two consignments of "Frozen Ox Pancreas Glands" which were charged to duty at 60% ad valorem + 15% ad valorem under Heading No. 05.01/15(1) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Later, the respondents claimed, by submission of two applications, the benefit of Notification No. 44-Customs, dated 1-3-1979. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim as unsubstantiated. The appeal against the said order was allowed by the Appellate Collector by his impugned orders. The consequential refund of duty was also paid to the respondents. 3. The basis on which the Central Government proposed to revi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to time, it was clear that the intention of the legislature had always been to extend duty concession to pancreas glands falling within Chapter 5 of the Schedule and that it was only owing to some administrative fault on the part of the Government, that pancreas glands falling within Chapter 5 were not exempted during the period 1-3-1979 - 12-4-1979. They also contested the reading of the Heading 30.01 as set out in the show cause notice. 5. We have heard Shri K.C. Sachar, D.R. for the Revenue and Shri Eddy Bharucha, Advocate with Shri B.A. Menezes, Advocate, for the respondent. 6. It is not disputed by the respondents that there was no exemption notification in force during the period from 1-3-1979 to 11-4-1979 concerning pancreas fa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....available. We had, in the circumstances, asked the Counsel for the respondents for the bills of entry but the Counsel had stated that he was not in a position to produce them. We, then, asked the D.R. to produce the file of the Assistant Collector and the Appellant Collector. This was on 26-2-1987 when arguments had been concluded and Order had been reserved subject only to the production of the file. Though the matter came up again on 18-3-1987 and 16-4-1987, the D.R. said that despite his communication, the relevant files were not forthcoming from the Collector. We have, therefore, per force to go by the material available on our record. So far as the record goes, the two Bills of Entry are dated 11-4-1979. There is no indication as to wh....