9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aksar and R. Sudhinder, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri R. Panchatcharam, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : A.C.C. Unni, Member (J)]. These are 12 Appeals involving the same issue, namely, the interpretation of Notification No. 11/97-Cus., dated 1-3-1997. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had denied the appellants the benefit of the Notification. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be considered to the Cold Rolled Coils . Ld. Commissioner had reasoned that the rule of construction was that nothing had to be supplied while interpreting a notification. He had relied on the Tribunal decision in Vikrant Tyres v. Commissioner of Central Excise. 4. Ld. Counsel drew attention to the various items covered under the Table to the said notification. He referred to S. No. 114 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C 599] to emphasise the point that no intendment can be read into any statutory provision. He also drew attention to Notifications 77/92-Cus. and 80/90-Cus. in which qualifying words had been used to entries at S. No. 9 and S. No. 8 respectively to restrict the scope of the exemption given under the Notification. No such qualifying words were provided against Entry at S. No. 105 of Table to Notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erused the record. We find that the submissions made on behalf of the appellants have strong force. On a comparative examination of the entries against S. No. 105 and S. No. 114 (reproduced above), it is quite apparent that if the intention of the legislature was to restrict the benefit of the Notification to Cold Rolled Coils if they are not further worked, suitable qualifying words would have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
