TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1097X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Limited [2014 (2) TMI 1133 - DELHI HIGH COURT] relied upon where it was held that the question of levy of duty would be included and also relate to rate of duty. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention of the Revenue that the present appeals would be maintainable because the issue relates to levy of duty and not rate of duty. Section 130 of the Act in clear terms stipulates that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER These three appeals have been filed by the Revenue under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (Act, for short). When CUSAA Nos. 42/2014 and 43/2014 had come up for hearing before the Court for the first time on 31st October, 2014, the following order was passed :- It appears that these appeals may not be maintainable under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 as the question raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and no appeal would lie before the Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Act. 4. As noted in our order dated 31st October, 2014, this Court in Commissioner of Service Tax v. Ernst and Young Private Limited, CEAC No. 12/2013, decided on 25th February, 2014 [2014 (34) S.T.R. 3 (Del.)], has held that the question of levy of duty would be included and also relate to rate of duty. Therefore, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -import, whereas the stand of the Revenue is that duty was leviable at the time of re-import. The respondent-assessee relies upon Notification No. 94/96-Cus., dated 16th December, 1996 in support of their contention that no Customs duty was payable. Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the respondent-assessee. 6. In view of the aforesaid position, it is held that the present appeals are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
