9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see are required to be considered. It is well settled law that if the benefit of the notifications is otherwise available to a assessee, even though not claimed at a time of the import of the goods, the benefit cannot be denied. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Excise Appeal No.70525 of 2017 - FINAL ORDER NO. 71049/2019 - Dated:- 24-5-2019 - Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And Mr. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Authorized Representative for Appellant Shri A.P. Mathur, Advocate for Respondent ORDER ARCHANA WADHWA Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Noi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated by them seeking denial of the benefit of the notification and proposing confirmation of demand to the extent of ₹ 2.99 crores (Approx.) for the period 01 June, 2015 to 31 March, 2016. The said show cause notice raised against the respondents stands adjudicated by the Commissioner vide his impugned order vacating the same. 5. It is seen that while holding in favour of the assessee, the Adjudicating Authority has observed that raw material in question was otherwise also liable to nil rate of duty in terms of Notification No.24/2005-Cus and 12/2012-CE. As such he extended the benefit of the said notification to the respondents. 6. For better appreciation, we reprod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Central Excise, Meerut V/s Modi Xerox Ltd., 2012 (275) ELT 406 (All.) iii) World Wide Horticulture Ltd. and Sh. M.S. Puri, Chairman V/s Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur-I, 2005 (98) ECC 556 (Tri.) iv) Commissioner of Customs, Chennai V/s Christian Medical College Hospital, 2007 (208) ELT 531 (Tri.-Chennai) 5.18 In terms of discussion any my findings in Para 5.17 above, I am of the view that the party was well within its rights to have claimed benefit of Notification No.24/2005-Cus and 12/2012-C.E. in lieu of the benefit of Notification No.52/2003-Cus and Notification No.22/2003-CE, especially in light of the Board clarification dated 12.01.2014 and 01.02.2017 which have been discusse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions and the imports were not imported under the claim of exemption in terms of the said notification, the subsequent claim is only a after though and misleading. The same is hypothetical to a state that they could have procured goods under general exemption notification whereas the fact remains that their procurement/import was specifically under Notification No.52/2003-Cus which was available only to 100% EOU. 8. We find no merits in the above contention of the Revenue. The Revenue is not disputing the fact that the import of raw material could have taken place under the cover of other two Notification No.24/2005-Cus and 12/2012-CE. The Adjudicating Authority, before extending the benefit of the said two notifications to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
