2007 (10) TMI 171

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned goods had been imported through Chennai port during the period 1999-2002. PANEL paid a concessional rate of Customs duty on the goods in terms of Notification No. 64/95-Cus., dated 16-3-95 as amended by Notification No. 48/96-Cus., dated 23-7-96, 13/97-Cus., dated 1-3-97 and 25/99-Cus., dated -28-2-99 as amended by Notification No. 20/2001-Cus., dated 1-3-2001. The concession was subject to the importer following the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules. The Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai passed an order under Section 129D and an appeal was filed against the said order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III, before this Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssioner of Customs, Chennai for de novo adjudication. The Commissioner of Central Excise did not have powers to demand differential duty on goods cleared through Chennai Customs. As the respondent was located in the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III, he could have demanded duty short-levied only if any goods imported had not been used for the purpose envisaged in the notification and had been diverted. Rule 8 of the ICRDMEG Rules empowered the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise to demand duty relating to imported goods only in such an eventuality. 4.  It was also submitted that Notification No. 25/99-Cus., dated 28-2-99 was amended by Notification No. 20/2001-Cus., dated 1-3-2001, which clarified....