2003 (6) TMI 106

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (T)]. - Larsen & Toubro Ltd., appellant in appeal C/8/02, imported between June, 1995 and September, 1995 steel plates and other goods intended to use for fabricating two tanks for storage of ethylene a plant at Ratnagiri. Of Finolex Industries Ltd., appellant in appeal C/6/02. The import was in pursuance of an order placed by Larsen & Toubro for Finolex. The importer claimed the benefit of conce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dering the contentions raised before him by both Larsen & Toubro and Finolex Industries Ltd., Deputy Commissioner passed orders holding that the benefit of the assessment in Heading 98.01 would not be available to the goods, ordering it to pay differential duty. The order made it clear that if the importer fails to pay duty, the tank in question would be seized. This order having been confirmed on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment order under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It accepted the contention of the appellant that notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act would not be issued before the relevant date. The date specified in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, the date of adjustment of duty after finalisation of the provisional assessment. This not having done, the demand under Section 28 of....