9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. In this appeal of the Revenue, the challenge is against grant, by the lower appellate authority, of the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 1-3-2002 (Sl. No. 363(A) r/w Item No. 72 of List 37) to the respondents in respect of the goods imported by the latter and cleared under a series of Bills of Entry. The goods covered by most of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntensifier and that the benefit of the Notification would be available only to the last component. On this basis, the provisional assessments on the Bills of Entry were finalized and demand of differential duty of over Rs.66.00 lakhs was raised on the assessee. This decision was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) in an appeal filed by the assessee. Hence the present appeal of the Revenue. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is stated that the benefit of the Notification is extendable to image intensifier components only. It is, further, submitted that the finding of learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the image intensifier tube cannot function independently is erroneous. Learned SDR has reiterated these grounds before us. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the respondents that a similar medic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nting the benefit of the Notification to the assessee in respect of image intensifier tube. In other words, the original authority considered image intensifier tube to be the same as image intensifier. However, the appellant, who seeks to restore the order of the original authority, maintains that the benefit of the Notification is extendable only to image intensifier component. Then, what happene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
