9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant to deny the benefit of concessional rate of duty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/359/06-Mum - A/85047/17/CB - Dated:- 8-12-2016 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Anil Balani, Advocate, for appellant Shri Ahibaran, Additional Commissioner (AR), for respondent Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. GOA/CUS/SNS/23/2005 dated 23.12.2005. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The appellant herein imported insole sheets for leather footwear and filed bill of entry dated 18.5.1998 claiming the benefit of exemption Notification No.11/97. The said bill of entry was provisionally assessed on payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20% (2) Other parts, consumables and items specified in List 3(B). 20% 6. The said benefit of concessional rate of duty is available only if the conditions in list are met. We find that the products imported by the appellant are specifically mentioned in serial No.3 in list 3(A). It is to be noticed that there is no other condition has been put in the notification for extending the benefit of the said concessional rate of duty. CBEC vide circular No. 74/98-Cus. dated 6.10.1998, on a reference made by the field as to imposition of actual user condition and end-use bond condition for insole/midsole and sheets thereon, opined as under:- 2. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for sheets but also they were imported for that purpose. It has to be shown that the goods were actually used as embellishment. 7. The said CBEC circular was issued on 6.10.1998 and would be applicable only from that date is the view which has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Intrade Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, Indore - 2001 (129) ELT 737 and followed by Mahavir Corporation vs. CC, Mumbai - 2003 (160) ELT 355. 8. In view of the above judicial pronouncements on the very same issue and the CBEC circular, we find that the imports in this case being prior to the date of circular having been issued, the actual user condition cannot be imposed on the appellant to deny the benefit of concessional rate of duty. 9. In view of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
