TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Ltd. [2017 (1) TMI 1529 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] The Hon'ble Apex Court has upheld the decision of the Tribunal CESTAT, Delhi [2017 (10) TMI 1281 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/40191/2014 - FINAL ORDER No. 42907/2018 - Dated:- 16-11-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) and shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri A, Cletus, ADC (AR)For the Appellant Shri S. Murugappan, Adv. For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench: Brief facts are that the respondents, M/s Ingram Micro India Ltd, imported External Hard Disc Drives vide Bi, of Entry, dated 29.04.2013 and claimed the concessional duty benefit under SI. No. 255 of Notification No.12/2012-CE, dated 01.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le, The appeal filed by M/s. Fortune Marketing Pvt. Ltd., before the Hon ble Apex Court was dismissed vide judgment dated 13.01.2017 and, therefore, the issue has attained finality. He prayed to restore the order passed by adjudicating authority. 3, Against this, the learned Counsel Shri S. Murugappan appeared and argued the matter- on behalf of respondents, He adverted to the Notification No.12/2012-CE and submitted that he notification refers only six digits, i.e., 847170. The adjudicating authority classified the goods under 84717030 to deny the benefit of exemption. The notification mentions only Hard Disc Drive. The Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed in paras 4 and 5 of the impugned order and observed that even External/Removable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms, New Delhi vs M/s. Supertron Electronics Ltd., as reported in 2017-TIOL-125-cestat Del. (decided on 06.01.2017) allowed exemption on imported External/Removal Hard Disc Drive and dismissed the appeal filed by department against Commissioner (Appeals) order. 6. Pursuant to the ROM applications by M/s. Fortune Marketing Ltd., the Tribunal reheard the appeal and recalled its Final order, dated 04.10.2016 allowing the appeal filed by assessee and holding that exemption is eligible. while rehearing the appeal pursuant to ROM application, the Tribunal considered the issue of exemption on the basis of the Office memorandum, dated 05.06.2013 issued by Ministry of communications and Information Technology (Department of Electronics Inform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt on merits upholding the decision passed by CESTAT, Delhi. That, therefore, the issue stands settled in favour of appellant as per the said judgment of Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs M/s. Supertron Electronics Ltd., dated 25.10.2017. 8. It is also submitted that this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Fortune Marketing Ltd., vide F.O No.41862/2017, dated 24.08.2017 had allowed the exemption placing reliance on the decision laid in the case of M/s. Supertron Electronics Ltd. That the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Reddington (India) Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai as reported in 2017- TIOL-1993-CESTAT-Del., has followed the decisions in M/s. Fortune Marketing and M/s. Supertron Elect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Hon'ble Apex Court observed that there has been a mis-statement on the part of the appellant (department) insofar as, the facts relating to the earlier decision of the Apex court in M/s. Fortune Marketing Pvt. Ltd., and thereupon decided to hear the appeal on merits. The relevant portion of the said order of Hon'ble Apex court, dated 18.09.2017 is reproduced as under:- Regarding the application filed by the respondent to bring additional documents and facts on record, it appears that There has been a mis-statement on the part pf the appellant, insofar as, the facts relating to the earlier decision of this court dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed by M/s. Fortune marketing Pvt. Ltd., is concerned. Learned counsel fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue has attained finality, The argument of the learned Authorised Representative that the Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed the appeal filed by M/s. Fortune Marketing Ltd., on merits, prior to the decision in M/s. Supertron Electronics Pvt. Ltd., is factually wrong - the appeal filed by M/s. Fortune Marketing Ltd.) was dismissed by Apex Court as withdrawn pursuant to their ROM filed before Tribunal being allowed 13. For these reasons/ we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order, wherein, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the goods imported are eligible for exemption requires no interference. 14. The appeal filed by the department is, therefore, dismissed. (Pronounced in open court on 16.11.2018) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
