TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2016 (7) TMI 863 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] wherein it was held that appellants are eligible for exemption under N/N. 6/2006 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/52061 & 52065/2015 - Final Order Nos. 56757-56758/2017 - Dated:- 25-9-2017 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President and Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (T) Shri S.K. Bansal, AR, for the Appellant. Ms. Rinky Arora, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Justice Satish Chandra, President]. - Both the appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal Nos. 65(SLM)CE/JPR/2015; and 66-69(SLM)CE/JPR/2015, dated 19-2-2015 23-2-2015 respectively, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur. The facts and circumstances of both t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccessories . But, in the instant case, it was the domestic consumption, there was no import concession claimed by the respondents. So, the ratio is not applicable. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Rinky Arora, Ld. Advocate for the assessee relied on the impugned order. She submits that another certificate is required only in the case of import which is not the instant case. 5. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the assessee s own case (Final Order No. 52371/2016, dated 1-7-2016) where it was observed that - 2. Demand of duty of ₹ 1,92,39,496/- stands confirmed against the appellant on the ground that the exemption of custom duty provided un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tries Ltd. reported in 2011 (264) E.L.T. 313 and Tribunal in that case allowed the exemption under Notification No. 6/2006, dated 1-3-2006 to the assessee. Reference can be made to another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Om Metals SPML JV Unit 2 v. CCE, Jaipur as reported in [2013 (298) E.L.T. 79 Tri.-Del.)]. We, therefore, hold that appellants are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006, dated 1-3-2006 and accordingly set-aside the impugned order and allow the appeal 6. By following our earlier order (supra), we find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders, the same are hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. 7. In the result, both the appeals filed by the department are dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
