9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. The issue involved is the correct determination of the duty liability in respect of UPS sold by the appellants to World Health Organization (WHO). 2. S/Shri G. Shivadass, the learned Advocate a/w G.V. Shanmugasundaram, the learned Consultant appeared for the appellants and Shri R.V. Ramakrishnappa, the learned JDR appeared for Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned JDR submitted that Notification No. 84/97-Cus. will be relevant only when WHO directly imports the items. In this case the WHO, purchases the goods from the appellant. Therefore, the Notification will be inapplicable. The appellants are liable to pay duty. However, the learned Advocate and Consultant submitted that relevant provision for payment of duty on goods allowed to be sold in In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty leviable will be Nil. Hence 50% of Nil duty is also Nil. The contention that 84/97 is not applicable is not correct. WHO can import the said goods. If they import the goods, surely they are covered by the exemption. When such goods are received from an EOU, then the Excise Duty leviable will be equal to the aggregate of the Customs Duty leviable on like goods produced or manufactured outside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the aggregate value, we have to arrive at the duties by 50% of what is calculated above. Since Notification 2/95 is read with any other available Notification, one cannot escape applying Notification 84/97. In view of the deeming provision, there is no substance in Revenue s contention that Notification 2/95 cannot be read with Notification 84/97. Hence, the appellants are rightly eligible for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
