TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after placing reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of FORMICA INDIA DIVISION VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [ 1995 (3) TMI 98 - SUPREME COURT] the claim of benefit exemption under S.No.33 of the very same notification was allowed. The appellant would be eligible for benefit under Sl.No.33 of the Notification No.25/2005 - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No.42154 of 2017 - Final Order No. 40408/2020 - Dated:- 17-2-2020 - HON BLE MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) Shri Raghavan Ramabhadran, Advocate For the Appellant Shri M. Jagan Babu, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER PE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification No.25/2005-Cus. dated 1.3.2005. The benefit under Sl.No.28 of the said notification has been denied by the department alleging that the cables are capable of carrying more than 80 Volts. The cables imported by the appellant even though are capable of carrying more than 80 Volts would be eligible since they have been used in telecom equipment having operating voltage less than 80 Volts. Thus disallowance of exemption under Sl.No.28 is erroneous in law. He adverted to the entry in Sl.No.28 in the notification and argued that as per entry at Sl.No.28, the exemption is eligible for electric conductors for a voltage not exceeding 80 Volts for a kind used for telecommunications. The word used is for and not of. So, it is not nece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision Vs CCE 1995 (77) ELT 511 (S.C) to extend the benefit of notification by holding that appellant had substantially complied with the conditions under 1996 Rules. Ld. Counsel was fair enough to advert our attention to the recent judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in Commissioner of Customs (Airport-Cargo) Vs Medreich Sterilab Ltd.- 2020 (1) TMi 439 _ MADRAS HIGH COURT wherein the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court observed that the benefit of exemption in the notification would not be eligible if the procedure prescribed in the 1996 Rules have not been complied. He explained that the said decision was in respect of plea put forward by the appellant claiming exemption of duty under the notification wherein the condition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing the Bill of Entry and they have not complied with the procedural requirements as per 1996 Rules to avail benefit of exemption under Sl.No.33. This being so, the authorities below have rightly rejected the claim of exemption both under Sl.No.28 as well as under Sl.No.33. 7. Heard both sides. 8. The very same issue as to whether the appellant is eligible for exemption under Sl.No.28 and Sl.No.33 was considered by the Tribunal in the appellant s own case vide Final Order No.41901/2018 dt.2.7.2018. The Tribunal in the said case disallowed the claim of the appellant under Sl.No.28. However after placing reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Formica India Division (supra) the claim of benefit exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on ble jurisdictional High Court had occasion to consider as to whether the requirement of fulfilling the conditions in the 1996Rules is only procedural or directory in nature. The Hon ble High Court in paras 8 9 observed that assessee would be entitled to exemption only if the procedure as required is complied. In the said case, the assessee was all through claiming the benefit of notification Sl.No.80B. In order to avail the benefit of this exemption the assessee had to fulfil the requirement of obtaining registration which was not fulfilled by the assessee whereas in the present case, the appellant has claimed the benefit of Sl.No.33 and it cannot be expected that they would have complied with the conditions under this serial number si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been entitled to the benefit of the notification had they met with the requirement of Rule 56A, the proper course was to permit them to do so rather than denying to them the benefit on the technical ground that the point of time when they could have done so had elapsed and they could not be permitted to comply with Rule 56A after that stage had passed. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellants should be permitted to avail of the benefit of the notification by complying at this stage with Rule 56A to the satisfaction of the Department. 10. The Tribunal has applied the decision in the case of Formica India Division in the appellant s own case. Following the decision of the Tribunal in the appellant s own case vide final or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
