2013 (2) TMI 496

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....): 1, ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Department is in appeal against judgement of the Tribunal dated 12.11.2010 raising following questions for our consideration: (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, transformation of the imported round logs into sawn timber in different sizes and length by the importer before subsequent sale to domestic mark....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... India Ltd. v. CCE & Cus., Hyderabad reported in 1994(73) ELT 769(SC)? (d) Whether the impugned order of the Tribunal,which is passed without referring to and giving its finding on all submissions and precedents pointed out by learned Departmental Representative at the time of hearing of the appeal, can be said to be passed in accordance with law? 2. Counsel for the Department candidly point....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nificant factor, which attracts our attention is that as stated by the counsel for the respondents, they were, under the law, obliged to reduce the length of the timber before its transport RTO authorities would not permit transportation of the timber which is longer than 40 Feet. 34. It is an undisputed position that the respondents imported the goods after paying SCVD. At the time of its sale....