1998 (8) TMI 355

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. CDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. - Ld. Advocate Shri M. Chandershekharan prays for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of Rs. 58,65,851/- demanded as duty and he also prays for similar treatment of personal penalty of an equivalent amount under Rule 114A of the Customs Act on the first appellant M/s. Polar Appliances Ltd. He also prays for stay of reco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rted by the appellant M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. therein. He submits that the reasons advanced by the adjudicating authority for denying the benefit of Notification No. 50/95 is to apply Rule 2(a) even to Notification No. 50/95 which he submits is totally illegal in view of the Tribunal's judgment in the case referred to in Maruti Udyog. He therefore submits that the applicants have a strong prima fac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;Opposing the contention ld. JDR Shri Lakhinder Singh, Jt. CDR submits that the benefit of notification has rightly been denied once it is admitted by the applicants that in terms of Rule 2(a) imported goods can I characterised a complete home appliance. There is no reason to treat them differently for the purpose of notification as has been done by the adjudicating authority. He therefore submits....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the ld. Advocate based on Tribunal's judgment in the Maruti Udyog Ltd. will not apply to the interpretation of Notification No. 50/95. In view of the above, we are of the opinion, that applicant has a strong prima facie case. Demand of differential duty of Rs. 58,65,851/- if it relates entirely to the parts covered under Notification No. 50/95, would prima facie be unsustainable. Our attention....