2018 (9) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ar, Sh. Nanthuk DR for the Respondent ORDER Per : V. Padmanabhan 1. The present appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal No. 73/2018 dated 22/03/2018. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of CCTV systems, scientific equipment, heat sensors, measuring equipments etc falling under various chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act. During the period of dispute i.e. July, 2009 to June, 20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 10/10/2017 in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. V/s Commissioner, Jaipur-I. Accordingly, he prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 4. The Ld. DR justified the impugned order. 5. After hearing both the parties, we note that identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of M/s Mangalam Cement Ltd. vs. CCE, Udaipur. The Tribunal vide final order No. 56683-56685/201....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s and also the notification dated 03/02/2016, this Tribunal in the case of Essar Steel India Ltd. (supra) has held that the said notification should be considered as declaratory in nature and effective retrospectively. The relevant paragraph in the said decision is extracted herein below :- "20. But, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (supra) was unable t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....), it has confirmed the Board Circular and resolved the different views of the High Courts. Taking into circumstances under which the Explanation was inserted in Rule 2(l) of Rules, 4 EX/53650 of 2015 2004 and consequence of the Explanation to extend the benefit to the assessee as per Board Circular, we hold that the Explanation inserted in Rule 2(l) of Rules, 2004 by Notification No. 2/2016-CX (N....