9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EER BHANDARI JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R The short question which arises for consideration in the present appeal filed by the revenue is "whether the end-use verification of the products is necessary for availing the benefit of concessional rate of duty". Respondent-assessee (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee') is engaged in the business of trading in various commodities including Crude Palm Oil and Crude Palmolin of Non-Edible Grade which is imported in accordance with law. On 28.3.2001, assessee imported consignments of Crude Pal Oil and Crude Palmolin and it is alleged that the assessee got them cleared after paying concessional rate of duty at the rate of 35% as per entry 29 of the Notification No.17/2001-Customs dated 1st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding that the Central Board of Excise and Customs could not, by issuing a circular subsequent to the issuance of the notification, add a new condition thereby restricting the scope of the exemption notification. It was held that the impugned circular No.40/2001-Cus. dated 13.7.2001 being contrary to the notification No.17/2001-Cus. dated 1st March, 2001 could not be sustained as it cannot override the said notification. In para 16, the High Court observed as under: "In relation to entry at Sr.No.29 no condition is prescribed. Similarly no condition is prescribed in relation to entry at Sr.No.34 or even in entry No.28. If the Notification No.17 has not provided for any condition, in our opinion, subsequent circular cannot impose such a cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as that of the Andhra Pradesh High Court must be affirmed and the decision of the Delhi Tribunal set aside insofar as it relates to the eligibility of LSP 340 to the benefit of the exemption notification. The Andhra Pradesh High Court was correct in coming to the conclusion that the Board had, in the impugned circular, predetermined the issue of common parlance that was a matter of evidence and should have been left to the Department to establish before the adjudicating authorities. The Bombay Bench was also correct in its conclusion that the circular sought to impose a limitation on the exemption notification which the exemption notification itself did not provide. It was not open to the Board to whittle down the exemption notification in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
