9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017 - FO/76658-76659/2018 - Dated:- 20-9-2018 - Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Shri Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri S. Guha, AC(AR) for the Appellant (s) Shri S.K. Mehta, Advocate for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K. Choudhary, Both the appeals have been filed by the Revenue against Order-in- Appeal No. Kol/Cus/Port/AA/222-224/2017 dated 27.03.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata. 2. Ld. DR reiterates the grounds of appeal. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent assessee submits that the subject appeal relates to the applicability of notification no. 30 of 2004 as amended by notification no 34 of 2015 and 37 of 2015 on imported goods which has been d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at naught when the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in the respondent s own case by dismissing the appeal preferred there from. On facts and under the circumstances, it is improper on the part of the revenue to cite an overruled judgment. With this dismissal the issue between the parties became final and/or res-judicata and the principles of stare decisis became applicable. It is his submission that Review application for SRF Ltd. was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 15.07.2016. This dismissal also overrules the judgement in HLG Trading Co delivered on 30.10.2015. HLG was delivered considering admission of Review Application which was pending at that time. The conclusion in the judgment that importer has to fulfil condi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal has been preferred against the above two orders and limitation period has expired. The orders have attained finality. 12. We also find that the Commissioner (Appeal) has followed the order passed by this Tribunal in the case of the respondent in which the benefit of notification No. 30 of 2004, as amended by notification 34 of 2007 and 37 of 2015 were extended to the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeal) held in paragraph 8 and 9 as follows. 8. Following the judgment of AIDEK Tourism Pvt. Ltd. Hon ble Supreme Court delivered another judgment on the same grounds in case of SRF Ltd. Reported in 2015 (318) ELT 607 (S.C.). In the case of SRF Ltd. Hon ble Apex Court further observed that the conditions which are not applicable to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 1623/2009 filed by Revenue. In the case of M/s SRF Ltd. (Supra) Advocate also relied upon the case law of M/s Chemsilk Commerce Pvt. Ltd. Shri Aditya Sarda Vs. CC (Port), Kolkata (2015) (12) TMI 1000-CESTAT, Kolkata] under which similar benefit has been extended to the appellant. 4. After hearing both sides and perusing the case records, it is observed that only ground under which Revenue filed this appeal is that department has filed a review petition in the Apex Court in the case of M/s ARF Ltd. (Supra) which is pending in the Apex Court. In view of dismissal of the review petition of the department by Apex Court by order dated 15.07.2016, appeals filed by the department are not sustainable. The issue has also been decided by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
