2008 (10) TMI 437

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ates, for the Appellant. Mrs. Sudha Koka, SDR and Smt. Joy Kumari Chander, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) (Oral)]. -  As the issue lies within a narrow compass, we take up both the stay and appeal together for a decision. 2. In terms of the impugned order, the appellants are required to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 7,72,41,672/- and equal penalt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ever, the Commissioner in the impugned order held the view that the parts should necessary fall under Heading No. 8701 and denied the benefit of the exemption. Similar is the position with regard to the exemption of parts used for tillers falling under Heading No. 8432. On this issue the Board issued a Circular F. No. 156/5/2006-CX-4, dated 16-11-2006 clarifying the position that the parts can fal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cations subject to fulfilment of other conditions. 6. However, the learned Commissioner has not taken cognizance of this clarification by the Board on the ground that it will have only prospective effect. 7. In this connection, the learned counsel invited our attention to the decision of the Mumbai Bench in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. CCE - 2007 (210) E.L.T. 579 (T) w....