9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog1994 (2) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in Civil Appeal No. 335 of 1987 and by the judgment rendered on September 18, 1987, it was held that the appellant was entitled to the exemption. 2. The aforesaid Notification held the field till 28-2-1986, whereafter Notification No. 153-Cus/86 came to be issued on the self-same subject. This Notification which is dated 1-3-1986 came to be amended by Notification No. 208-Cus., dated 13-3-1986. The benefit of the exemption under these Notifications was initially denied to the appellants but came to be granted ultimately. 3. The Customs Tariff Act was amended subsequently and a new Notification, this time bearing No. 69-Cus/87, came to be issued on 1-3-1987. The appellant claimed exemption under this Notification also which has not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by M/s. Jain Engineering Co., Delhi, for extending the benefit in terms of Notification No. 69/87, dated 1-3-1987, I observe that this benefit flows to parts falling under heading 98.06. The statute i.e. the Customs Tariff Act, was amended w.e.f. 1-3-1987 and that in the statute both 84.09 and 98.06 are co-existing and in the matter gone into by the Hon'ble Supreme Court there was no occasion to consider the changes effected in the statute, even though their order was dated September 1987. I do not accept the contention of the importer for benefit under Notification 69/87-Cus. in respect of parts which are not classifiable under Heading No. 98.06 of C.T.A. If the importer has any grievance with reference to classification of any parts or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bservation made by this Court in its earlier judgment that parts covered by Heading 84.06 `will get benefit of exemption' leaves no manner of doubt that benefit under Notification No. 69-Cus/87 has also to be given. 8. We have not felt inclined to express our view on the contention advanced by Shri Dholakia because there is no order of even the first assessing authority denying the exemption, de hors what was held by this Court in its aforesaid judgment. It is apparent that by this force of the aforesaid judgment alone, benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 69-Cus/87 cannot be claimed, though it may be that the view taken by this Court in the earlier appeal lends support to the contention of the assessee, if what has been provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
