TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 362
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) for all the goods classifiable under CTH 480830 to 480990. 2. SCN dated 26.03.2013 came to be issued which proposed to demand the duty since the Revenue felt that the above Notification was amended by providing exemption only to goods falling under CTH 470790 vide Notification No. 127/2011-Cus. dated 30.12.2011. Though the appellant-taxpayer filed its reply justifying its claim for the benefit, however, per Order-in-Original No.25485/2014 dated 30.05.2014, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand along with applicable interest. Aggrieved by the said demand, it appears that the taxpayer filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals); and the First Appellate Authority also having rejected their a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xemption vide Notification dated 1-3-94 was an inadvertent error and the Government realizing this mistake had reintroduced the exemption it will be treated as only corrective and clarificatory in nature. This contention was accepted by this Court in the aforesaid judgment holding that even during the period from 1-3-94 to 24-4-94, the manufacturers of part of power driven pumps shall continue to get the exemption. The relevant part of the said judgment which squarely applies to the present case as well is reproduced below in Paras 16-17 : "16. In view of the consistent policy of the Government of exempting parts of power driven pumps utilized by the factory within the factory premises, it could not be said that while issuing Notification....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant would submit that the issue in the case on hand is almost similar to the one decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court and, therefore, the appellant-taxpayer was entitled to the benefit of Notification, even during the interregnum period, despite the fact that the said Notification had erroneously omitted the mentioning of the CT headings involved in this case. 8. Per contra, Shri Sanjay Kakkar supported findings of the lower authorities. He would also take us through the documents sought to be placed on record, to highlight that the applicability of the Notification supra has been clarified to be effective prospectively and therefore, taxpayer is not eligible for the benefit of Notification in question. 9. We have carefully gone through ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct of the part of power driven pumps was also included as rescinded. Thereafter, the same item was again exempted by Notification No. 95/94-C.E. issued on April 25, 1994. In this manner, insofar as parts of power driven pumps are concerned, there was no exemption in respect thereof for the period from 1-3-94 to 24-4-1994. 9. The assessee in the aforesaid case took the same plea by arguing that since the decision of the exemption vide Notification dated 1-3-94 was an inadvertent error and the Government realizing this mistake had reintroduced the exemption it will be treated as only corrective and clarificatory in nature. This contention was accepted by this Court in the aforesaid judgment holding that even during the period from 1-3-94 to....