9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. IEE Engg. Enterprisers Private Limited has filed this appeal challenging an order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), wherein she had upheld an order of the original authority denying the benefit of exemption Notification No. 25/99-Cus., dated 28-2-99 to two consignments of plastic film imported by the appellant during October and November 2000. At the time of import, the goods had b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants, namely, BOPP film got covered by the entry Sl. No. 44 of list A of the Notification No. 25/99-Cus. only with the introduction of the Explanation to the said entry vide Notification No. 20/01-Cus., dated 1-3-01. The Explanation read as follows :- Explanation :- for the removal of doubt, plain plastic film includes Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene (BOPP) film. Dispute involved i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngalore [2006 (206) E.L.T. 897 (Tri.Bang.) = 2008 (11) S.T.R. 199 (Tribunal)] 4. Ld. SDR defends the impugned order. 5. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions by both sides. There is no dispute that the assessing officer had allowed the benefit of the Notification at the time of clearance of the goods. They had extended the benefit to BOPP film as the same were b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that an explanation to Notification No. 14/2000-C.E. vide Notification No. 47/2002-C.E. was clarificatory in nature and had retrospective effect. The said decision had been arrived at in view of the peculiar facts of the case and that ratio cannot be applied to the subject case. However, the Tribunal had relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in W.P.I.L. Ltd v. C.C.E., Meerut [2005 (181) E.L. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
