9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial is produced before us to take view in consonance with the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Morarjee Brembana Ltd. In the result, the question raised is answered in negative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. - 8 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 2-3-2010 - V.C. Daga and K.K. Tated, JJ Shri Ashok Singh i/b Ms. A.V. Latne, for the Appellant. S/Shri A.S.Rao with R.B. Pardeshi, for the Responsdent. [Order per: V.C. flaga, J.]. - Heard learned Counsel for the rival par ties, Perused appeal. Question of Law: 2. This appeal filed by the appellant MIs. Shree Rajasthan Texchem Limited was admitted vide order dated 6th March, 2006 to consider whether Cess le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the aforesaid order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai, who was pleased to set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and allowed appeal upholding the contention raised by the appellant. 8. The Revenue, not satisfied with the above order, invoked appellate jurisdiction of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal, Mumbai (Tribunal for short) . The Tribunal, vide its order dated 8th June, 2005, was pleased to hold that the cess was leviable on the imported Textile Machinery even though CVD was nil. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner by allowing the appeal filed by the department. 9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present appellant has invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rties, the question of law sought to be raised and canvassed revolves around the interpretation of the Notification No. 110/95- Cus., dated 5th June, 1995 whereunder the Central Government had granted ex emption from payment of customs duty in excess of 15% and whole of additional duty of excise. Reading of the said notification nowhere refers to the grant of ex emption from the payment of cess payable under Section 5A of the Textile Committees Act. The subject notification nowhere in the preamble refers to the grant of exemption from payment of cess under the Act under which the cess is being levied. The Apex Court in the case of Modi Rubber Limited (supra) has observed as under: The respondents have in fad produced several notifications ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of excise payable under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. (emphasis supplied) 12. Following the ratio of the Supreme Court decision referred to above, we hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case exemption from payment of cess was not available to the appellant for want of specific notification in that behalf. No material is placed before us to infer that the cess leviable under the Textile Committees Act was component of CVD. So far as reliance placed by the appellant on the case of Moray Brembana Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the same is misplaced. In the facts of that case, the element of cess may have been included in the CVD but in the case in hand no such material is produced before us to take view in consonance with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
