TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds decision on Customs duty exemption for Zircon Sand/Ore under Notification No. 4/2006-CE</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad Versus M/s. Seazone International Pvt. Limited and others</h3> Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad Versus M/s. Seazone International Pvt. Limited and others - TMI Issues:- Stay petitions for impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 267 to 279/2013/Cus/Commr(A)/AHD- Benefit of exemption Notification No. 4/2006-CE regarding additional duty of Customs (CVD) on imported goods (Zircon Sand/ Zircon Ore)Analysis:The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD addressed the stay petitions concerning the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 267 to 279/2013/Cus/Commr(A)/AHD, where the first appellate authority had set aside the assessment conducted by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeals directly due to the narrow compass of the issue. After hearing both sides and reviewing the records, it was acknowledged that the core issue revolved around the eligibility for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 01.3.2006 concerning the payment of additional duty of Customs (CVD) on the imported Zircon Sand/ Zircon Ore.The Tribunal noted that the first appellate authority had based its decision on a previous ruling by the Bench in a similar matter involving Classic Microtech Pvt. Limited. Upon examining the case laws and records, the Tribunal found that the issue was no longer res-integra. It was highlighted that in an order dated 19.3.2013 concerning Ruby Ceramics Pvt. Limited, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Classic Microtech Pvt. Limited had been accepted, and the Board opted not to file an appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no further substance to the appeals filed by the revenue.In the final analysis, the Tribunal deemed the impugned order of the first appellate authority to be legally sound, correct, and devoid of any flaws. As a result, the appeals presented by the revenue were dismissed. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in the Court, solidifying the decision made by the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 