TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Customs, Chennai [2015 (4) TMI 561 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the claim of the appellant. Held that: - it appears that when the order in appeal was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the above mentioned judgements/orders were not available. In other words, the orders passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as passed by Tribunal are subsequent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the impugned Bill of Entry by classifying them under Customs Tariff Item 8517 1290. 2. On import of these mobile phones, the appellant was paying additional customs duty at the rate of 12.5% as provided under Schedule 1 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. In this regard S.No.263A (from 1.3.2015 onwards) of Notification No. 12/2012-CE also provided a concessional rate of CVD of 1% on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i S Vasudevan, learned Counsel relied heavily on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC (Import General), New Delhi [Final Order No. 55614 -55695/2016 dated 28.11.2016. He also submits that the said issue has been examined by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case SRF Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2015 (318) ELT 607 (SC), wherein the Hon ble Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
