9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igits. As a consequence, when the spectacle lenses imported by the appellant were given the benefit of exemption as per the exemption notification No.6/6 dated 1st March, 2006, the said position continued even thereafter and therefore the appellant was entitled to the benefit of this notification even for the period in question - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal(s) Involved:C/458 - 468/2009; C/603 - 617, 1450 - 1477/2010 And C/102 - 110; 589 - 621; 1045-1090; 1310 - 1324; 1784 - 1797/2011 - Final Order No. 21414-21584 / 2017 - Dated:- 7-8-2017 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAVICHANDRAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER Mr. V. Ganga Bai, Advocate, For the Appellant Mr. Chandra Mohan, Commissioner (AR), Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red appeal before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) vide various impugned orders upheld the assessment of semi-finished spectacle lens classifying the same under Chapter Subheading 9001.90.90 of the Customs Tariff Schedule as other optical elements without extending the benefit of exemption contained under Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law as the appellate authority has proceeded on an erroneous premise of treating the imported semi-finished spectacle lenses as ophthalmic blank . He further submitted that semi-finished spectacle lenses and ophthalmic blank are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be finished spectacle lenses . Therefore, such lenses would clearly be treated as spectacle lenses and were [xx] entitled to exemption notification which view was taken by even the department itself for earlier years. 9. We set-aside the impugned judgment of the CESTAT [and hold] that the goods in question were entitled to exemption as per Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., dated 1st March, 2006. The appeals are allowed with consequential benefits. 5. Since the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellants by the judgments of the apex court in the appellant s own case and by following the ratio of the decision of the apex court, we allow all the appeals of the appellant with consequential relief. (Operative portion of the O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
