9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m - Held that: - It would appear that the goods cleared by the appellant-assessee to DTA though may broadly fall under the category of optical components, they are not fit to be used as such without further work. In the appeal, Revenue did not bring out any evidence to support their claim that these are not at all optical items or components but are simple glasses - no case is made out by Revenue against the impugned order on this ground. Eligibility of Night Vision Binocular for clearance to DTA - Held that: - appellant says that they do have specific permission dt. 27.11.98 from the Development Commissioner for clearance of specific number of Night Vision Binoculars to DTA. As such, we find no merit in the appeal by the Revenue on this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal by the appellant-assessee. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the original authority held that when the appellant-assessee cleared their goods to DTA availing exemption under Customs Notification No.51/96-Cus. dt. 23.7.96 they have to pay back customs duty concession availed at the time of import of inputs, raw materials etc. in terms of Notification No.53/97-Cus. dt. 3.6.97. Condition No.7 of the said notification states that if finished goods manufactured using the imported items are not excisable, then customs duty equal to the amount leviable on the inputs should be paid by the assessee. Ld. counsel submitted that products manufactured by the appellant-assessee are excisable but eligible for exemption under Notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing the decision of the Tribunal in Ginni International Ltd. Vs CCE Jaipur - 2002 (1390 ELT 172 (Tri.-Del). The said decision was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in 2007 (215) ELT A102 (SC). The Revenue in the present appeal contends that the facts of the present case are not similar to Ginni International (supra). We note that the Tribunal held that once the Development Commissioner gives due permission after examination of the data submitted by the assessee, the same cannot be varied by the assessing authorities. We also note that in the appellant-assessee's own case vide order dt. 20.6.2003, the jurisdictional Commissioner allowed DTA clearance based on the quantification fixed by the Development Commissioner. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gly, no case is made out by Revenue against the impugned order on this ground. 7. The final issue raised by the Revenue in their appeal is with reference to eligibility of Night Vision Binocular for clearance to DTA. During the course of argument, ld. counsel for the appellant-assessee submitted that they do have specific permission dt. 27.11.98 from the Development Commissioner for clearance of specific number of Night Vision Binoculars to DTA. As such, we find no merit in the appeal by the Revenue on this issue also. 8. In view of the above discussions and analysis, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. Appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed. ( Dictated and pronounced in court ) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
