2004 (7) TMI 489

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inal Order and have considered the submissions of both sides. 2. In our Final Order dated 6-8-2003, we had held that, in view of the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Lady Amphthil Nurses Institutions v. Commissioner of Customs [2002 (150) E.L.T. 776], the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988. 3. The subject-matter of the appeal consists of two imported consignments, one consisting of "Electromyography with accessories" and the other consisting of "Probe for Ultra Sound Scanner". The two consignments were cleared under two Bills of Entry. The authorities below demanded duty on both the items by denying the benefit of exemption Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988. Be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. Notification No. 65/88-Cus. was not a part of the subject-matter of that case. The appellants' Consultant submits that the question whether they were entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 65/88-Cus. has to be remanded to the original authority for a decision thereon. We have heard ld. SDR also. 4. We find that, in respect of "Probe for Ultra Sound Scanner", the appellants have not raised any plea of error for rectification. On the other hand, as regards "Electromyography", they had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 65/88-Cus. before the first appellate authority and before this Tribunal. The relevant Bill of Entry indicate....