9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1035X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bad. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are an 100% EOU and have procured various items duty free under notification No. 53/97-Cus, dated 03.06.1997 read with notification No. 1/95-CE, dated 04.01.1995. The Department vide show cause notice dated 28.07.2003 sought to recover the duty of Rs. 9,65,201/- on certain items holding the items in question have not been used in connection with manufacture and packing of goods and hence not eligible for the said exemption. The Jt. Commissioner vide his Order-in- Original dated 27.05.2004 dropped the proceedings initiated. However, the department filed an appeal against the said Order-in-Original which was allowed by Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant's appeal to CESTAT res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om various departments. He also submits that in compliance of para 2.7 of Part-1A of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, they have used ducting the equipments for ducting the air conditioner system. He relies on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MOSER BEAR INDIA LIMITED Vs. Commissioner of Customs, NOIDA as reported in [2015(325)ELT 236 (SC)] and submits that in terms of Notification No. 53/97-Cus, it is not necessary that the impugned material is required to be used in manufacture of export products only, import goods can be used for purpose of manufacture of articles or for being used in connection with the production. 5. Ld. Authorized Representative for the Department reiterated the findings of the Order-in-Appeal and subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for such meetings and the minutes of the meetings etc. to evidence that the conference room was used for the purposes related to production of the export goods thereby showing the nexus between the impugned goods and the export goods, as the data is very old. We find that Hon'ble Apex Court after analysing in the case of M/s Ginni Filaments Limited (supra) has held that the exemption notification has to be read strictly so far as the eligibility is concerned. Though the Apex Court decision is rendered in the context of Notification No. 123/81-CE, we find that the central issue of nexus has been dealt by the Apex Court. Therefore, we find that the judicial discipline requires that we follow the same. 7. In the result, we hold that the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
