9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee-appellant denying the appellant's claim for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. (Sl. No. 15) dated 01.03.2005. 2.1 Shri Gokulraj L., Ld. Advocate appeared for the appellant and Shri. R. Rajaraman, Ld. Assistant Commissioner, argued for the Revenue. 3. We have heard the rival contentions and we have perused the documents placed on record. 4. After hearing both sides, we find that the only issue that is to be decided by us is: whether the first appellate authority was correct in denying the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 24/2005 ibid.? 5.1 Facts are not in dispute: the appellant had filed a Bill-of-Entry No. 3249615 dated 19.04.2011 to import DVM 60 Camcorder 1 tape / PK PDK Plastic Film ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... say, the credit of duty on inputs or tax on input services should not have been taken under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which the appellant has failed to prove. (iv) To sum up, both the Notifications are not unconditional and the appellant having not proved its eligibility, no benefit could be extended to the appellant. 6. We have perused the general exemption Notification No. 24/2005 dated 01.03.2005, as amended, which is placed on record. 6.1 The description of the goods that was sought to be imported was clearly prepared unrecorded tape namely, DVM-60 Camcorder 1 tape/ PK TDK Plastic; DVM-60 is a mini DV Tape which can record up to 60 minutes of digital video. The same is a complete product by itself and is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, has not brought out anything on record to even suggest that the DVM-60 Camcorder 1 tape / PK PDK Plastic Film, the goods in question which were imported, are only the raw materials and not the finished products since there was no justification to examine the issue vis-à-vis Sl. No. 39 and then to hold that the appellant's claim was incorrect. 7.3 The Commissioner (Appeals) has further proceeded to examine the claim of benefit under Notification No. 24/2005 ibid. in the context of Notification No. 1/2011 ibid. and finally, has rejected both the claims, which is also not in order in the light of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Share Medical Care v. Union of India [2007 (209) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)] wherei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
