2011 (8) TMI 804

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Ld. SDR. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice.  The appeals filed against the common adjudication order, therefore, are being taken up together. The respondents have filed cross objections, whereby it is submitted that the reconciliation statement was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents were registe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mport and the demands were confirmed. The respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals.The Commissioner (Appeals) held as under: "I have gone through the records of the case and heard the appellants. It is seen that the import under the Project Import Scheme was over before the Regulation 7 became operational. The factory is als....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the import for finalization of the assessment under the Project Import Regulations. In the present case, in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has noted the fact that the respondent had filed reconciliation statement before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has not taken into consideration the reconciliation statement. However, the appeal filed by the responden....