2016 (12) TMI 1682

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Ashok Jindal, Member (J)]. - Demand of duty of Rs. 15,36,306/- have been confirmed against the appellant on the ground that the appellant is not entitled to benefit of Notification No. 25/99-Cus., dated 28-2-1999. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant imported copper wire for manufacturing of transformers and claimed the benefit of No .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the benefit of said notification and the clarification issued by TRU dated 7-12-2001 is not applicable in the light of subsequent Notification No. 26/2002, dated 1-3-2002 wherein benefit was allowed and the same is to be treated as clarificatory in nature in the light of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Johnson & Johnson Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad [1997 (92) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.)] and Gu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the notification would be available only if the item namely, self-soldering enamelled copper wire is used for the manufacture of IF/RF coils or IF/RF transformers and will not be available for manufacture of all types of transformers as claimed by the importer." 7. On going through the said clarification, it is clear that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of notification if they are .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X