9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with Ms. Ritu Thakkar, Advocate, for Appellant Shri S.V. Nair, AC (AR), for Respondent Per: Archana Wadhwa Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the facts are identical. 2. The appellant herein is a Scientific, Technical R&D Organization engaged in various research projects. They placed an order on M/s Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. (ECIL) for manufacture of Networ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai has taken the decision that their application for clearance of the goods in terms of the exemption notification was considered and found to be not eligible for the exemption. Such letter of the Range Superintendent was not specifically challenged by M/s Godrej & Boyce, who cleared the goods on payment of duty @ 16.32% ad valorem. The goods were su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant fairly agrees that the said letter dated 28.10.2005 was not challenged before any higher appellate forum by M/s Godrej & Boyce. However, he draws our attention to the fact that when the above development was brought to their knowledge by M/s ECIL, they advised them to clear the goods on payment of duty under protest, inasmuch as the goods are required immediately by them in respect of "CHANDRA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as also by another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. - 2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC), the only verification required is of the factual position. The original adjudicating authority would do the needful and decide the issue in the light of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. Both the appeals are allowed by way of remand. & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
