9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been preferred by the appellant, M/s. Can-Pack India Pvt. Ltd. against the impugned order in appeal No. 168 (CRC-IIB)/2011 (JNCH) IMP 142, dated 26.03.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Nhavasheva, Mumbai-II, upholding the Order-in-Original No. 327/2011 dated 06.01.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, JNCH. 2. The brief facts of the case are, the appellant fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2008. Being aggrieved the appellant had preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who was pleased to reject the appeal. 3. Being further aggrieved by the impugned orders, the appellant has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 4.1 The appellant contended that there is no violation of any condition of the Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. A procedural requirement in reference to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condition thereby restricting the scope of the exemption or restricting or whittling it down cannot be imposed. The principle is applicable to the instant cases also, though the controversy is of different nature." 4.2 Appellant further submits that Dy. Commissioner as well as Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon para 2 (ix) of CBEC Circular; it cannot be inferred from the said circular that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the second part refund claim in question is entertainable for refund of SAD, within the provisions of Section 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act read with Notification No. 102/2007. I further hold, following the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Sandur Micro Circuits Ltd. (supra) that CBEC circular cannot curtail the scope of benefit available under the Notification. The appeal is allowed with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
