2009 (6) TMI 838

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....allation of goods and to finalize the assessment. Despite several reminders issued between 1995 and 2001 the appellants did not appear before the authorities with necessary documents to finalize the assessment of import under Project Import Regulations. Under a communication dated 11-6-2002 the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Chennai proposed to demand an amount of Rs. 1,65,208/- being the benefit availed by the importer under Project Import Regulations 1986 for their failure to satisfy their eligibility to the concessional rate by producing the required documents before the proper officer of Customs. The original authority passed an order confirming the demand of differential duty as proposed in the Show Cause Notice. As per this order the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is point had not been considered in the order of the original authority. He went on to direct the original authority that the matter could be examined on its merits at the time of finalization of project after giving the appellants due opportunity to respond to this query. 2. The impugned order is challenged in the appeal filed before the Tribunal on various grounds. The main grounds raised are that the notice basic to the proceedings having invoked Section 28 of the Customs Act, which was found to be not appropriate in the impugned order, the entire proceedings were vitiated as found by the Commissioner (Appeals). The other important ground taken is that after the proper officer having satisfied that the application of the importer....