9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for the Respondent. [Order per : D.N. Panda, Member (J)].- Ld. counsel Shri Narasimhan argues that the goods imported falls under Sr. No. 17 of Annexure-1 to Notification No. 52/2003-Cus., dated 31-3-2003 and such goods have received clearance of Board of Approval which appears at page-51 of the paper book. Description of the goods appears in a table in that Page. Approval was conveyed on exami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entitled to the benefit of notification in question. Once benefit is granted breach of notification cannot be alleged against the appellant. 2. Ld. DR appearing for Revenue submits that Revenue is competent to examine the case of the appellant. The appellant had lost its own case earlier as reported in 2006 (204) E.L.T. 590. The goods were not capital goods for which the appellant is not entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e denied of the benefit of the Notification No. 52/2003 dated 31-3-03 read with similar such Notification under Central Excise Act, 1944. There is no quarrel between the parties .that the decision of the Tribunal in the own case of the appellant reported as 2006 (204) E.L.T. 590 shall prevail over the present case. We have noticed that decision made earlier as reported in 2006 (204) E.L.T. 590 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifies that they are before the Apex Court. 4. We noticed that when there is a specific entry in the notification and purport of the notification is very clear entrusting a duty to the committee called Board of Approval, the appellant should not be denied of benefit of the Notification No. 52/03 dated 31-3-03 when approval was granted. We do not express any opinion as to the nature, quality and ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
