TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect could be given to the exemption notifications - Secondly, the assertion of the department that no warehousing period was extended for the goods in consideration is also held to be unjustifiable, warehousing licence granted to the respondent is examined by the CESTAT and is held to be in accordance with Circular No.7/2005-Cus, dated 14.2.2005. Time limitation - HELD THAT:- The demand made by the revenue is not tenable. Having regard to these factors which, more or less relates to the factual aspects of the matter, the finding given by the fact finding authority CESTAT cannot be held to be perverse or arbitrary. Appeal dismissed. - C.S.T.A.No.11/2019 - - - Dated:- 9-12-2021 - HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SUJATHA AND HON BLE MR. JU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vt. Ltd., Bengaluru, during the year 2002. Pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the appellant authorities, reply was filed by the respondent assessee. On consideration of the same, the adjudicating authority passed the order in original confirming the proposed demand made in the show cause notice. Being aggrieved, the respondent assessee preferred an appeal before the CESTAT which came to be allowed by setting aside the demand confirming the order in original. Being aggrieved by the said order of the CESTAT, the Revenue has preferred this appeal raising the following substantial questions of law; 1. WHETHER, the receipt of goods supplied by one unit of EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP to another unit shall be treated as imported goods for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otifications?. 4. The appeal was admitted by this Court on 12.8.2021 to consider the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the CESTAT failed to appreciate the gamut of the notification No.140/91-Cus dated 22.10.1991 in a right perspective. Inviting the attention of the Court to Condition No.13 of the said notification, it was argued that the essential condition that the goods sent on inter unit transfer were to be necessarily used for the purpose of development of the software was not complied with, by the respondent assessee. The CESTAT further failed to appreciate that the goods transferred from one unit of EOU to another unit are to be treated as imported goods for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the Revenue was barred by limitation. Having considered all these factual aspects, the CESTAT has rightly allowed the appeal. Hence, the substantial questions of law deserve to be answered in favour of the assessee by dismissing the appeal. 7. Adverting to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties as aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the substantial questions of law require to be answered in favour of the assessee for the following reasons; As regards the inter unit transfer, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore-Cus v. M/s Global Green Company Ltd., (CSTA No.3/2021, D.D. 19.11.2021), where one of us (Hon ble SSJ) was a member, has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification dated 24.6.2002 cannot be made applicable to the notification No.140/91-Cus retrospectively unless it is specifically expressed therein. 9. It is well settled that all notifications are prospective in nature, in the absence of giving any retrospective effect specifically, no retrospective effect could be given to the exemption notifications. 10. Secondly, the assertion of the department that no warehousing period was extended for the goods in consideration is also held to be unjustifiable, warehousing licence granted to the respondent is examined by the CESTAT and is held to be in accordance with Circular No.7/2005-Cus, dated 14.2.2005. 11. Further on the ground of limitation also, the demand made by the revenue is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
