9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ms. Rinky Arora, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Justice Satish Chandra, President]. - Both the appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal Nos. 65(SLM)CE/JPR/2015; and 66-69(SLM)CE/JPR/2015, dated 19-2-2015 & 23-2-2015 respectively, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur. The facts and circumstances of both the cases are identical, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals. 3. With this background, we heard Sh. S. K. Bansal, Ld. AR for the Revenue who submits that in the instant case, the certificate was issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Power. He submits that another certificate was required from the Chairman-cum-Managing Director which was not produced. It is his submission that the respondent is not registered wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee's own case (Final Order No. 52371/2016, dated 1-7-2016) where it was observed that - "2. Demand of duty of Rs. 1,92,39,496/- stands confirmed against the appellant on the ground that the exemption of custom duty provided under Sl. No. 400 of the Notification No. 21/2002, dated 1-3-2002 and inasmuch as the said Sl. No. applies to goods classifiable under Chapter 98.01 of the Customs ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Since the goods manufactured in India cannot be classified under 98.01 of the Central Excise Tariff, denial of the exemption on the ground of non-fulfilment of condition of Project Import Regulation is not sustainable particularly when condition No. 86 of the Notification No. 21/2002, dated 1-3-2002 is fulfilled by them. Similar submissions were made by Revenue for denying the benefit of Notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
