9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said notification was denied by the Revenue on the ground that the appellants have not placed any evidence showing that the said items have been used as agricultural or horticultural implements and no end use certificates was produced. On this basis demand of duty of Rs. 34,13,695.89 was confirmed against the appellants by the Asstt. Commissioner, Jamshedpur. However on an appeal against the above order the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. The said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is impugned before us. 2. We have heard Shri R.K. Roy, ld. JDR for the Revenue and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, ld. Adv. along with Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld. Adv. For the respondents. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e final approval of classification list No. 49/93 have been received by appellants. Had there been final approval disallowing the exemption, a show cause notice should have been issued. I also find that the Asstt. Commissioner may have gone beyond her powers while adjudicating the case involving over Rs. 34 lakhs too under Sec. 11A. Since there is no end use criteria in the notification and these implements having been classified under 82.01 they are eligible for benefits of exemption Notfn. No. 11/88. The appeal is accordingly allowed with consequential relief. 4. It is seen that notification No. 111/88 grants exemption to the goods falling under chapter 82 and describing the goods under Sl. No. 3. The description given under Sl. No. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification grants exemption only upon showing that the same are meant for use in agriculture or horticulture purposes and is not dependent upon the actual factum of use of the said tools for the said purposes. The Revenue s contention as made in the grounds of appeal that the notification specifically stipulates the condition of use in agriculture and horticulture is not appreciable. Merely because the said items may find use in some other industries will not make them disentitled to the benefit of the said notification inasmuch as, as already observed the said notification is not dependent upon the end use condition of the items. As such, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), relevant paragraph of which ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
