TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SDR, for the Appellant. Shri C.V. Srinivasamoorthy, Consultant, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. In all these appeals, the department is aggrieved by grant, by the lower appellate authority to the assessees, of the benefit of Customs Notification No. 20/2006 (Sl. No. 50) in respect of Silk Fabric imported by them. In terms of Sl. No. 50 of the Table annex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of the appellate Commissioner, the department submits that the ruling of the apex court in Shree Hari Chemicals (supra) is not applicable to the facts of these cases. It is submitted that, in the case considered by the apex court, the assessee had wrongly availed the benefit of a Central Excise Notification, whereas, in the instant cases, assessees did not claim the benefit of any No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rong provision, whereas, in the present case, the benefit of the Customs Notification was not claimed at all. After a perusal of the apex court s judgment, we are not impressed with the distinction sought to be struck by the appellant between the case of Shree Hari Chemicals Exports Ltd. (supra) and the case on hand. In the said case, credit of duty paid on input was claimed under Rule 57A, but, l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CVD at a later stage In the present cases also, the appellant has no case that the respondents were not eligible for the benefit of Customs Notification No. 20/06. The appellant seeks to deny this benefit to the respondents on the sole ground that the same had not been claimed by them at the time of assessment/clearance of the goods. The denial of the benefit on this ground cannot be counte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
