2016 (4) TMI 719

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mmissioner (Appeals), and being guided by the Apex Court judgment in the case of CC (Prev.), Mumbai Vs. M. Ambalal & Co. [2010 (12) TMI 16 - Supreme court of India], laying down the ratio that interpretation of law should be made to suppress the mischief and to curb ills of mis-declaration, we are in full agreement with ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that right of claim to the notification benefit is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... evenue's contention is that, the goods came with inbuilt machine which should not enjoy the notification benefit. Had the goods been separate, there would have been consideration of applicability of the Notification. Therefore, both authorities below have rightly passed the order. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded how the examination of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t mis-declaration of the goods was intentional. That takes away all rights of the importer from the claim of benefit of exemption notification. 3. In view of the detailed examination done by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), and being guided by the Apex Court judgment in the case of CC (Prev.), Mumbai Vs. M. Ambalal Co. - 2010 (260) ELT 487 (S.C.), laying down the ratio that interpretation of l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X