9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are filed against Order-in-Appeal No. COC-CUSTM-000-APP-77 to 99/2020-21 dated 23.09.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Cochin. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants had filed 23 Bills of Entry between 24.1.2020 to 16.6.2020 declaring the imported items as Palladium (II) Tetra Amine Sulphate classifying the same under Customs Tariff Heading 3824 99 00, Nylon Resin under Heading 3908 10 49 and Gold plating Replenisher Solution under 3824 99 00 claiming benefit of exemption Notification No.25/1999-Cus. dated 28.2.1999 as amended. However, since the exemption was not allowed, they paid Customs duty as assessed under protest and cleared the goods, accordingly. Later, they filed ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of issuance of original Notification, he referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Jubliant Organosys vs. Assistant Commissioner: 2012 (26) ELT 335 (Kar.), which has been followed subsequently by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Polyplex Corp. Ltd. vs. UOI: 2014 (306) ELT 377 (All.). 4. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner (A). 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. The short question involved in the present appeal is: whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification No.25/1999-Cus. dated 28.2.1999 as amended by Notification No.36/1999-Cus. dated 30.12.1999. The benefit of the said Notification was de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if it is effective from the date of its issuance. It then becomes an amendment. A correction relates back to the date of the notification itself. If that is so, the order of the appellate authority as also the revisional authority are contrary to the notification dated 29-11-2002." The said principle has been followed subsequently by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Polyplex Corp. Ltd. (supra). 6. Following the above principle laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court, we do not find merit in the order of the learned Commissioner (A) holding that Corrigendum dt. 27.05.2020 is prospective in nature. Consequently, the order of the learned Commissioner (A) denying the benefit of the Notification No.25/1999-Cus. dated 28.2.1999 as am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
