9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, Authorized Representative for the appellant. Shri C. Sumanth, Chartered Accountant for the respondent. [Order per: ASHOK JINDAL] 1. Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002- CUS (Sl.No.217) dt.01.03.2002 to the respondent and dropped the demand raised against them. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed against the respondent. The benefit of the exemption notification was denied and consequently, the demands were raised against the respondent. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) classified the impugned goods under CTH 2710 1990 of Custom Tariff Act, 1975 and allowed the benefit of exemption notification No. 21/2002-CUS dt.01.03.2002 and dropped the proceedings against the respondent. Aggrieved by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the records. 5. On perusal of records, we find that initially the issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of CGG Marine vs Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Visakhapatnam in appeal C/91/2007 and this tribunal vide Final Order No.A/30472/2016 dt.16.05.2016 has examined the issue in detail and observed as follows: "6. We find that the facts of the above cited case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Certificate issued by Director General of Hydrocarbons that the said goods have been used in connection with the petroleum operations, therefore, relying on the decision in the case of CGG Marine (supra), we hold that the respondent is entitled for the benefit of exemption notification No. 21/2002- 7. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is uphe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
