2009 (1) TMI 555

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. -  This appeal is filed by the department against order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 25/Cus/Appl/Jal/2006 dated 28-2-2006. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows :- (a)     The respondent imported dry fruits from Afghanistan via Pakistan through Lahore - ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ine from Rs. 5,86,000/- to Rs. 3,50,000/- and penalty from  Rs. 1,05,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. However, taking note of the fact that notification No. 76/2003-Cus. is not subject to the condition relating to import of a specified route allowed the exemption. Hence, the department is in appeal. 4. Learned D.R. reiterates the findings and reasoning of the original authority and the grounds ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....C.), it has been held by the Supreme Court that strict construction of a notification is to be done in terms only of their own words - Wordings of other notification are of no benefit in construing a particular notification - Reasoning having effect of adding words to Notification cannot be adopted. The ratio of this judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable in the instant case. In....