9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Appeal No. E/2809/2004. 2. In this appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal was called upon to decide the issue as to whether the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Adjudicating Authority were right in the conclusions that they reached. The conclusions that they reached are that the Notifications which were in force at the relevant time enabled the respondentassessee to avail of the benefits and since the assessee has fulfilled the conditions which have been laid down in the Notifications, there is nothing erroneous of illegal in the act of the assessee. 3. Mr. Kantharia appearing for the Revenue in support of this appeal submits that the question of law framed at page 10 paragraph 5(I) is a substantial question of law. He would submit that in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and benefit of one of them could have been availed of, then, the correctness of that conclusion requires scrutiny and verification by this Court. That is required because of the failure of the Tribunal to note the amendment to the Notification No.8 of 1997 relied upon by the assessee. The question, therefore, is whether the Notification is really amended or superseded by a further Notification. The appeal, therefore, be admitted. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Shroff learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee would submit that there are concurrent findings of fact. It is erroneous to assume that Notification No.8 of 1997 has been amended. In that regard, he relies upon the Notification itself to urge that the Notification clarifies that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was following Notification No.8 of 1997 dated 1st March, 1997 and the review is based on Notification No.13 of 1998. For the period prior to the issuance of Notification No.13 of 1998, it therefore, cannot be utilised so as to review the position prior to its issuance. Mr. Shroff submits that there was a specific contention raised by the assessee viz. that this Notification No.13 of 1998 which is operative from 2nd June, 1998, is proposed to be applied for the period prior to 2nd June, 1998. Hence, the department's appeal must fail. It is in these circumstances that the finding of fact is relied upon by Mr. Shroff and which finding in the appellate order is confirmed by the Tribunal. He, therefore, submits that such findings do not rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned as to how Notification No.8 of 1997 dated 1st March, 1997, as amended by Notification No.7 of 1998, is still in force. This Notification has not been amended by Notification No.13 of 1998. 8. The correctness of this finding was in issue before the first Appellate Authority viz. the Commissioner (Appeals) and it concurred with the Adjudicating Authority that the assessee is producing fresh mushrooms out of indigenous raw material and clearing the same in domestic tariff area in pursuance of sub-para (c) of paragraph 9.9 of EXIM Policy 1997 - 2002 read with Notification No.8 of 1997 as amended. The findings in that regard are to be found in paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 of the order of the First Appellate Authority. 9. Since Mr. Kantharia has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
