9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EN SING BALI, SHRI M.S. SWAMINATHAN VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE-I [ 2020 (7) TMI 93 - CESTAT BANGALORE] . It has also been brought to our notice that the same has been upheld by the Apex Court. Therefore, the decision of the Bangalore Bench has attained finality and further process by the decision of Tribunal in the case of M/S. SUTURES INDIA P. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL CUSTOMS, CHENNAI [ 2019 (4) TMI 538 - CESTAT CHENNAI] cannot be relied upon. There are no error in the notification, if any, should have been brought to the notice of the concerned authorities and got corrected. This Tribunal being a creature of statute cannot sit in judgment on interpretation of a notification or the purport of the notification. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002 at Sr. No. 363 (A) and as to whether extended period of limitation can be invoked. 3. Shri Anil Balani, Learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant submits that they have been importing Skin Barriers Microporus Surgical Tapes Surgi Pore Brand falling under Customs Tariff Heading 30059060 and have been availing the exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002; the Department has been allowing the imports and exemption thereof without raising any objection; however, in the year 2011, DRI conducted investigation and show-cause notices were issued to various importers seeking to deny exemption notification and seeking to recover the differential duty; showcause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re Surgical Tapes are two distinct products. There is a punctuation error in the notification as can be traced by the history of the notification issued from time to time since 1981. The decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal is not applicable in the present case on merit as the same is dissented with the decision of Sutures India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) on an incorrect understanding of the facts that specific product for Ostomy purpose having dual purport was not considered. However, the same was considered in the case of Sutures India (supra). 6. Learned Counsel submits that the goods have been imported since long, by various importers, and Department has been allowing the examination contained under Notifications No. 29/94-Cus dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied upon the order of 3M India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, decided by the Bangalore Bench and reported in 2020 (373) ELT 385 (Tri-Bang). 9. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 10. As submitted by the Counsels, the issue is no longer res integra as being decided by the Bangalore Bench in the case of 3M India Ltd. (supra). It has also been brought to our notice that the same has been upheld by the Apex Court. Therefore, the decision of the Bangalore Bench has attained finality and further process by the decision of Tribunal in the case of Sutures India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) cannot be relied upon. 11. We find that the appellant has submitted that there has been a punctuation error in the notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
