TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (11) TMI 483
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... imposed on M/s. Intrade Impex Pvt. Ltd. 2. In this case, the duty was confirmed on the applicants on the ground that they wrongly availed the benefit under Notification 11/97 dated 1-3-1997 in respect of goods imported by them, as much as the goods, in question, incapable of being used as insole sheets in leather industry, were being cleared at concessional rate of duty under the above mentioned notification. 3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that the applicants made import of nylon tericot flocking fabrics and availed the benefit of Notification No. 11/97 dated 1-3-1997. The notification provides concessional rate of duty to the goods capable of being used as insole sheets in leather industry. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated that the existing practice of Customs House, Mumbai, was to allow the unconditional benefit of Notification 11/97 in respect of nylon tericot fabric and it was decided that nylon tericot flocking fabric can be granted benefit of Notification No. 11/97 and Notification 27/98 provides that importer should adduce the evidence to show that the goods imported by the applicants were meant for use in the leather industry. He submits that the applicants made import of the goods, in question, before October, 1998. Therefore, the change in practice, suggested in circular dated 6-10-1998, cannot be made applicable in their case. 6. Ld. Counsel also submits that no sample from the goods, imported by them, was taken. The case of the revenue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ectorate of Revenue Intelligence, which shows that the prevalent practice in Mumbai Customs House at that time was to grant exemption under Notification 11/97 as claimed by the applicants in respect of nylon tericot flocking fabric. The circular dated 6-10-1998 provides that the nylon tericot flocking fabric can be cleared under Notification 11/97-Cus. on the condition that the importer should adduce the evidence to show that the goods imported by them were meant for use in the leather industry. In these circumstances, suppression or mis-declaration cannot be alleged against the applicants. 10. The revenue is not disputing the fact that no sample was taken from the goods imported by the applicants. The sample was taken from other co....