TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (7) TMI 205
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....[Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - The appellant is aggrieved with the order of Collector (Appeals), Calcutta. The appellants had imported 62 crates of Wood Rough peeled but not further prepared item falling under Central Excise Tariff Item 4408.90 read with Notification Nos. 62/85, dated 17-3-1985 and 311/86, dated 13-5-1986 attracting basic Customs duty at 10% ad valorem only. The goods ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (signed by Customs), packing list and the original copy of the Bill of Entry. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) had set aside the matter and remanded the case. However, the Asstt. Collector again rejected the claim holding that the Party should obtain an order of assessment from the Group concerned and file a claim before Collector (Appeals). Before the Collector (Appeals) the appellant produced....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tification coming into operation. The learned Collector (Appeals) has rejected the appellant's argument and has held that the rate of duty has to be the rate which was prevailing on the date of presentation of Bill of Entry i.e. 8-10-1986 in terms of provisions containing in Section 15(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. He has further held that the appellant has not placed any documentary evidence from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as put on sale. Therefore, in the present case the rate of 10% as per Notification Nos. 62/85, dated 17-3-1985 and 311/86, dated 13-5-1986 should be charged and the excess duty paid should be ordered to be refunded. He also relied on the ruling rendered by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Raj Kumar Kedia v. Collector of Customs - reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 481. On a similar issue Shri J. N....