TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1711
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant pointed out that they had obtained license from DGFT for import of material under Notification No. 93/2004-Cus. The exemption was sought to be availed for import of relevant synthetic cloth for manufacture and export of synthetic slippers/ sandals with PU sole under SION norms A3541. SION norm A3541 permitted import of various items including relevant cloth for insole (non-woven/woven/ knitted/laminated with PVC/PU), 1.02 sq. meter/sq. meter content in export for manufacture and export of one pair of synthetic slipper/ sandals with PU sole of all sorts. The license obtained by the appellant against the entry 'relevant synthetic cloth for uppers (non-woven)/ knitted / laminated with PVC/PU' prescribed ITCHS Code 59031090 at serial No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Haryana in the case of Vikrant Overseas vs. UOI - 200 (123) ELT 486 (P&H) to hold that said amendment cannot be given retrospective effect and the benefit of notification is denied to the appellant. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that SION norms did not prescribe any heading or sub-heading of the Customs Tariff Act and the imports are permissible as per description given in SION norms. He argued that the description of the goods imported is covered in the description in SION norms and therefore benefit should not be denied. 4. Ld. AR relies on the impugned order. 5. We have gone through the rival submissions. We find that appellants are holder of license issued for availment of benefit under Notification No. 93/2004-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....09 Decision: The Committee considered the case as per agenda and along with other relevant papers and heard Sh. Rakesh Adnani, Director and Sh. Surendra Gandhi, an authorized representative of the firm, who appeared for personal hearing before NC. They explained the case along with relevant papers and sample of the export item. In this case advance authorization in question was issued on 06.06.2007 to the applicant firm and input output norms were ratified by norms Committee by allowing the inputs as per S1ON at S.No.A-3541. In this case firm imported Synthetic cloth for Uppers (Non Woven/ Woven /Knitted/ Laminated with PVC/PU) HSW-KN06B-LP. The Committee felt that as per SION, A-3541, it is clearly specified that the import item v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y mentioned in the SION norms. The committee at Ministry of Commerce has also clarified that any change in the ITC (HS) Code has no bearing on the benefits to be given under advance authorization issued under Para 4.7 of HBP. 5.2 The Revenue has relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Vikram Overseas (supra). It is seen that the facts in the said case are significantly different. In the said case, the amendment was substantial in nature whereas in the present case it is of procedural in nature. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Bhilwara Spinners Limited vs. UOI - 2011 (267) ELT 49 (Bom.) distinguished the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Vikrant Overseas ....