2010 (12) TMI 1135

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, for the Appellant. Shri P.K. Agarwal, JCDR, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. The learned advocate Shri J.C. Patel appearing for the appellants states that the appellants had imported a stone crushing plant and a hot mixing plant availing exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002, Serial No. 230. It is the case of the department that the appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onal Development Authority (MMRDA) has been prima facie held to be a corporation empowered to construct roads for the purpose of the very same notification. Further, he states that both the machines have been seized, confiscated and are in the custody of the department and one of the machines in respect of which a duty amount of Rs. 1,44,11,453/- has been quantified has been all along in the posse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed for use of the goods exclusively for the construction of roads and also not to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods for a period of five years. We find that the appellants have executed a bond where an amount has been specified but stipulation that the amount is payable for failure of the terms of the undertaking is not available. In any case, we also note that the notification does not have ....