9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 844 - SCH - Central ExciseBenefit of exemption under notification in respect of playing cards as sports goods - Held that - Tribunal by order 2014 (7) TMI 985 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD held that it can be seen from the above reproduced relevant Entry No.75 in the Notification No. 02/2011-CE, dt.01.03.2011 that the exemption is granted to all the products falling under Chapter 95. The said entry does not indicate any further sub-heading number and would mean that all products falling under Chapter 95 which are considered as sports goods are eligible for exemption other than articles and equipments for general physical exercise. The plain interpretation of said notification would indicate that the appellant is eligible to avail the said benefit of notification if his product falls under Chapter 95. In the case in hand, there is no dispute that the appellant s product Playing Cards is classifiable under Chapter 95 and more specifically under Chapter sub-heading No.95.04. If that be the case, we are of the view that the benefit of notification cannot be denied to the appellant. Besides the above findings, tribunal find that identical issue in respect of playing cards was under the consideration of the Tribunal in the case of Esbee Playing Card Co 1996 (12) TMI 147 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI . In this case it was held that the term sports goods used in the notification is of wide purport and does cover playing cards . Apex Court has dismissed the revenue appeal against the impugned order. - The supreme court held that having gone through the records of the case, we are of considered opinion that the appeals, being devoid of any merit, are liable to be dismissed and, are dismissed accordingly. - Decided against the revenue.
The Supreme Court in 2015 (2) TMI 844 - SC Order, with CJI H. L. Dattu and A. K. Sikri, JJ., dismissed the appeals as devoid of merit after considering the case records. Delay was condoned. Appellant represented by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, A.G., and others. Respondent represented by Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran and others.
|
