Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2005 (5) TMI 442

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4-11-2003 amending Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 is not clarificatory as it was not issued within one year of the parent notification. While arriving at the conclusion, she has relied on sub-section (2A) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962.  3.The facts in brief as follows : - "The appellants had imported goods described as "component of bipolar electrolisers and cell elements based on ion-exchange membrane cell technology" and cleared the same on payment of duty under protest. Later, they filed a refund claim for an amount of Rs. 1,69,80,271/- claiming benefit of Customs Notification No. 21/2002 elated 1-3-2002 (Sl. No. 285). The above notification provides exemption for the goods for modernization of an exis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peared for the Revenue. 4.The learned Advocate for the appellants relying on a plethora of case laws strenuously argued that in the circumstances of the case, the amending notification should be given retrospective effect. He relied on the following case laws: - (1)     WPIL Ltd. v. CCE [2005 (181) E.L.T. 359 (S.C.)] (2)     Johnson and Johnson Ltd. v. CCE [1997 (92) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.)] (3)     CC v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. [1996 (82) E.L.T. A40 (S.C.)] (4)     CC v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. [1984 (17) E.L.T. 525 (T)] (5)     CCE v. North Eastern Tobacco Co. Ltd. [2002 (146) E.L.T. 490 (S.C.)] (6)  &nbs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....odernization by using membrane cell technology, of an existing caustic soda unit; 15% - 62     (2) Membranes for replacement of worn out membranes in an industrial plant based on membrane technology.       A reading of the above entry indicates that the notification will not be applicable if the goods are required for a new unit. In the instant case, even though originally the goods were meant for the existing caustic soda unit Kovvur, they could not use as they had closed the unit due to the Orders of Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board. The amending Notification No. 161/2003-Cus. reads as follows :- "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs A....