9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E dated 9-7-2004 was denied. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of wool/acrylic/nylon sweaters and cardigans and filed a Bill of Entry claiming the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. The notification provides exemptio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefit of the notification is not available in respect of goods in respect of which credit of duty on inputs and capital goods have been taken. In the present case, the appellant failed to fulfil this condition, therefore, the benefit of notification was rightly denied. The Revenue relied upon the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Motiram Tolaram v. Union of India reported in 1999 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification is that the benefit is not available to the goods in respect of which credit of duty on inputs or capital goods has been taken. The appellant heavily relied upon the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Lohia Sheet Products (supra) where the Hon ble Supreme Court allowed the benefit of Notification No. 8/96-C.E. In Lohia Sheet Products case the notification provided Nil rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication is not available to the goods in respect of which credit of duty on inputs or capital goods has been taken, therefore, the ratio of the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court relied upon by the appellant is not applicable on the facts of the present case. We find that Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Motiram Tolaram (supra) relied upon by the Revenue denied the benefit of notification whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
