2008 (11) TMI 191

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd claimed the benefit of Notification No. 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-1992 in terms of the DEEC licence and the Department allowed the same. However, by a notice dated 22-8-1995, a demand of Rs.15,35,392/- was proposed on the ground that in respect of HMS imported by the appellant Modvat credit has been taken by the supporting manufacturer of the appellant and was confirmed. On appeal, the Tribunal vide its order dated 22-11-2000 remanded the matter to the original authority with the following observations/directions:- "8. In view of the submission of the appellants that they have fulfilled the export obligations albeit beyond the prescribed export obligation period, we are of the view that the interest of justice requires that the case may....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a mistake and same has also been accepted by the Department. Once they are not covered under DEEC licence, the question of their complying with the conditions under Notification No. 203/92 does not arise. They are willing to pay the duty on HMS as applicable at the time of import and that they are eligible for the concessional rate of duty provided under Notification No. 83/90-Cus. as amended. He also submits that the eligibility for concessional rate of duty under the above notification was claimed before the authorities even before the order of remand by the Tribunal which was not dealt with in the order. Even the impugned order does not deal with the said issue. Learned Advocate also submits that they are liable to pay the CVD @ Rs.1,000....