2013 (10) TMI 578

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....00,000/- At Appropriate rate C/S/11513/13 8,85,26,291/- 2,20,00,000/- At Appropriate Rate 2. The above said amounts have been confirmed by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the appellants herein had imported iron ore pellets and claimed exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 (as mentioned at Sr. No.4). The Adjudicating Authority has come to the conclusion that iron ore pellets are produced by pellet plant out of iron ore concentrates and hence the benefit as claimed by the appellants are not available. After following due process of law the adjudicating authority held against the appellants. 3. Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would talks us through the notificati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se duty if they are manufactured in India. He would submit that benefit of notification 4/2006-CE will not be available to the appellant. Since the appellant has mis-declared the goods, the extended period is correctly invoked by adjudicating authority for confirmation of the demand of the duty. It is his submission that confirmation of demand by the adjudicating authority is correct. 5. We have considered the submission made at length by both sides and perused the record. 6. The entire issue in this case is whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of exemption on the goods imported by them. It undisputed that the appellant had imported iron ore pellets and declaring the same as per the documents annexed along with the consignmen....