9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicating authority, namely, the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Administration), Kolkata was of the view that the respondent/assessee is not entitled to benefit of notification no.45/2005 Customs dated 16th May, 2005 in the light of the circular issued by the Board being Circular no.44/2013 Customs. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority confirmed the proposal in the show cause notice and denied the benefit of the notification. The decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore-1 vs- Motorola India Limited [ 2019 (9) TMI 229 - SUPREME COURT] . It was pointed out that when the question involved is whether an assessee is covered by an exemption notification or not is a question relatable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VAT on the said goods even at any subsequent stage of transfer of the said goods? (b) Whether the Learned Tribunal has rightly interpreted that the Circular No.44/2013 Customs dated 30th December, 2013 has curtailed the scope of an exemption Notification vide No.45/2005-Cus(Tariff) dated 16th May, 2005 when the said Circular is explanatory in nature and has given nothing but a mere clarification of the exemption Notification vide No.45/2005-Cus(Tariff) dated 16th May, 2005 and no new condition and/or restriction has been brought into effect to curtail the scope of the said original exemption Notification vide No.45/2005- Cus(Tariff) dated 16th May, 2005 ? (c) Whether the Learned Tribunal erred to have arrived to such perverse findings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d denied the benefit of the notification. On appeal before the Tribunal, the decision rendered by the authority for Advance Rulings, New Delhi in Ge India Industrial Pvt. Ltd., 2014 (304) E.L.T. 452(A.A.R.) and the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex. Pune-III reported in 2019(370) E.L.T. 407 and relief was granted to the assessee. First, we take up for consideration the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Ghosh with regard to the maintainability of the appeal before this Court. The facts are not in dispute, namely, that the benefit of the notification no.45 of 2005 has been denied. In such circumstances, will it be a bar for this Court to entertain this appeal under Section 130 of the Act? In this regard, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
