2017 (2) TMI 137

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed. Subsequently, the respondent was asked to submit certain documents and Reconciliation Statement. Respondent submitted Reconciliation Statement along with certain documents. However, the adjudicating authority denied the benefit of Project Import Regulation 1986, and confirmed the differential duty demand and imposed penalty. Aggrieved by the order-in-original dt. 13.2.2006, the respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). They have submitted certain documents along with the Reconciliation Statement to Commissioner (Appeals) also on going through the said documents Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal. Therefore the Revenue is before me. 3. Shri M.K. Mall Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment by the appellant. The show cause notice dated 07.10.05 appears to be a mere repetition of the earlier show cause notice demanding the same documents for re-conciliation of the same statements. There is also no reference or mention as to whether the earlier re-conciliation statement submitted by the appellants were satisfactory and if not what the short-comings were. It is also mentioned in the impugned order-in-original that the appellants had submitted the re-conciliation statement vide their letter dated 03.04.98 but minus the remaining documents required under Project Import Regulations, 1986. This finding of the original authority is clearly based on wrong presumptions. As can be seen from the operational Regulation 7 reproduced ab....