TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 737X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MS HARSHA DEVANI AND MR A. P. THAKER, JJ. For The Petitioner (s) : MR ANAND NAINAWATI (5970) ORAL ORDER ( PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Mr. Anand Nainawati, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of the appellant had placed reliance upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prince Khadi Woollen Handloom Prod. Coop. Indl. Society v. CCE, 1996 (88) ELT 637 (SC) for the proposition that if it is the case of the revenue that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of a particular notification, the revenue must give the appellant a show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 114(1) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962? ( B) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in relying upon Notification No.67 dated 23.1.2003 issued under rule 11 of Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 which is not specified as restriction under Serial No.45AA of Notification No.55(RE- 2008)/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
