2003 (11) TMI 437

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original vide which the Commissioner has confirmed the duty of Rs. 10,02,931/- under Rule 8 of the Customs (Imports of Goods at Concessional Rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods) Rules, 1996, after denying the benefit of Notification No. 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s imposable and the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, the learned SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. 4. We have heard both sides and gone through the record. We find from the record that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of electrical steel lamination and core assembly falling under sub-heading Nos. 8312.00 and 8504.00....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....han permissible under the Exim Policy 1997-2002. But, in our view, on this ground the benefit of the notification could not be denied as the above said notification did not prescribe any input/output ratio of the various goods imported at concessional rate of duty and as such any ratio prescribed under the Exim Policy 1997-2002 could not be made applicable to the case of the appellants. The notifi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ere allowed concessional rate of duty. The wastage was bound to occur as the defective portion of the goods could not be used in the manufacture of the final products by the appellants. It is not the case of the Department that the appellants had in any manner clandestinely sold the imported goods as such or cleared the final products manufactured out of the same in a clandestine manner. They had ....