9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri H.G. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for respondent ORDER Per : Raju This appeal has been filed by Revenue against order of Commissioner (Appeals) directing the Assistant Commissioner to consider the refund application. 2. Ld. AR pointed out that the respondents were engaged in export of Black Steel Pipes/Tubes and on 9.6.2008 and 10.6.2008 they filed various shipping bills on which Let Export Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of rejection holding that the notification No. 77/2008 was effective from 00 hrs., on 13.6.2008 and therefore in respect of goods on which Let Export Order was given on 13.6.2008 the the exemption would be available Ld. AR argued that in these circumstances the benefit of notification cannot be extended to these export. He further argued that the shipping bills were finally assessed and in view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the same cannot be raised before the second appellate authority for the first time. He further relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi 2010 (250) ELT 30 (Del.) to assert that it is not necessary to challenge the order of assessment. He pointed out that the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication No. 77/08 which is dated 13.6.2008 there is no doubt or dispute about the fact that Notification takes effect from the midnight of 12th and 13th June 2008. In the instant case, the 'Let Export Order' has been given on 13.6.2008 and therefore the benefit of notification No. 77/08 dated 13.6.2008 shall apply to the exports made by the appellant and hence they are rightly entitled for the ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal. It is settled law that Revenue cannot raise fresh grounds at the second appellate stage. For this purpose reliance is placed on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Kalyani Sharp India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III 2008 (226) E.L.T.197 (Tri.- Mumbai) and in the case of Commissioner of Cus. (Import), Mumbai Vs. Voith India Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (242) ELT 263 (Tri.-Mumbai). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
