1997 (9) TMI 263

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. The claim of the importers for benefit of Notification 156/Cus. 86 was not accepted by the lower authority on the observation that the goods imported were spare parts whereas the notification prescribed concessional rate of duty for component parts. The request of availment of Notification 69/Cus. 87 was denied by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , ld. Advocate placed on record a number of decisions in support of his claim that there was no distinction between the spare parts and component parts and that the assessees were eligible to take simultaneous benefit of two notifications. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5. The Tribunal in the Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s. Jindal Strips Ltd. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... imultaneous benefit of more than one judgment (notification) cannot be denied. The only distinction in the present case is that the assessees are seeking the benefit of one notification for availing benefit of basic duty and of the other notification for the benefit of auxiliary duty, the second notification prescribing the higher rate of basic duty. This distinction, to our mind, is not sufficien .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X