2016 (9) TMI 1409

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 004 till 5-8-2004. During this period, the N/N. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 has undergone amendment. N/N. 66/2004-Cus., 9-7-2004 granted benefit of duty concession to ink cartridge at the relevant point of time of import but not to toner cartridge - while issuing N/N. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 legislature had not intended to cover toner cartridges under ink cartridges - appellant fails to succ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the notification. He relied on the decision of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Lexmark International (I) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2006 (196) E.L.T. 71 (Tri.-Chennai). 3. Revenue on the other hand says that ink cartridge falls under Sl. No. 117 of the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002. Therefore, appellant is not entitled to any benefit, when the goods imported was toner cartridge .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n cannot be presumed to be covered by that. Therefore, while issuing Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 legislature had not intended to cover toner cartridges under ink cartridges. Therefore appellant fails to succeed. 7. So far as the citation (supra) made by the appellant is concerned that related to an explanation covered by Sl. No. 276 of the Notification, which reads as under : .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X