2017 (3) TMI 1195

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndent Order The appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 155/2006/CAC/CC (I)/AKP/Contract Cell/ dated 30.11.2006 whereby the ld. Commissioner passed the following order:- "Order 26. The project import benefit is denied in respect of the 18 moulds whose contract was registered with the Mumbai Custom House. 27. the Moulds are classified under heading 848079 of the Customs ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1986 for which the contract was registered on 10.02.1994. However, out of 18 moulds, 10 moulds were imported prior to the registration of contract i.e. on 20.12.1993. However, on such import the goods were classified under the chapter heading 8480 and cleared the same on merit by paying duty without availing the project import benefit. 8 moulds were imported and bill of entry for which was filed o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tement. After 9 years of import an addendum dated 08.02.2006 to the show-cause notice dated 11.11.1997 was issued under Section 124 read with Section 28. Thereafter the adjudicating authority passed the impugned order dated 30.11.2006 as detailed above. Therefore the appellant is before me. 3. Shri K.R. Bulchandani, ld. counsel submits that in the impugned order the demand of duty was confirmed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... imported and cleared against the registered project contract, therefore the same were eligible for project import benefit and for this reason the 8 moulds are not liable for confiscation. 5. Shri V.R. Reddy, ld. Asstt. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the revenue reiterates the findings in the impugned order. 6. I have carefully considered the submission of both sides and found that there is....