TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f heading of 8 digits - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/324/2009-DB, C/327/2009-DB, C/328/2009-DB, C/329/2009-DB, C/330/2009-DB, C/331/2009-DB, C/333/2009-DB, C/334/2009-DB, C/335/2009-DB, C/469/2009-DB, C/470/2009-DB, C/471/2009-DB, C/473/2009-DB, C/474/2009-DB, C/475/2009-DB, C/472/2009-DB, C/332/200 - Final Order No. 20247-20263 / 2018 - Dated:- 16-2-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. V. PADMANABHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER Mr. V. Ganga Bai, Advocate, For the Appellant Mrs. Kavitha Podwal, AR, For the Respondent Per : S.S GARG In all these appeals filed by the appellants, the issue involved is classification of semi-finished spectacle lenses and eligibility for exemption Notification providin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Tariff Schedule as other optical elements without extending the benefit of exemption contained under Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law as the appellate authority has proceeded on an erroneous premise of treating the imported semi-finished spectacle lenses as ophthalmic blank . He further submitted that semi-finished spectacle lenses and ophthalmic blank are commercially recognized to be two different and distinguished goods. He further submitted that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra and has been settled by the Hon ble apex court in fav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r years. 9. We set-aside the impugned judgment of the CESTAT [and hold] that the goods in question were entitled to exemption as per Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., dated 1st March, 2006. The appeals are allowed with consequential benefits. 5. We also note that this Tribunal in appellant s own case vide Final Order No.21414 - 21584/2017 dated 7.8.2017 has allowed the appeals of the appellant. Since the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellants by the judgments of the apex court and this Tribunal in the appellants own case and by following the ratio of the decision of the apex court, we allow all the appeals of the appellant with consequential relief. (Order was pronounced and dictated in Open Court on 16/02/2018) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
