2020 (10) TMI 211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Video Conferencing on 21.09.2020. By consent of both the parties, both these Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. By placing reliance on Customs Notification No.125/84-C.E., the petitioner claimed exemption from payment of duty against the sales effected by them against the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) against foreign exchange. The Revenue rejected the claim, holding that the petitioner is liable to pay the duty demanded. The challenge made to the rejection before the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner of Appeals were unsuccessful. Consequently, in the appeal before the CESTAT reported in 2005 (184) ELT 214 in the case of Jumbo Bag Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, it was held that the duty demand was no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the Revenue is not justifiable in interpreting the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order. 5. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent relied on the averments made in the counter affidavit and stated that in the case of Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. (supra), there was no issue regarding the applicability of duty liability to sales, but the dispute with regard to the quantum of duty applicable. 6. The writ petitions are on a very narrow campus as to the effect of the dismissal of the appeal by the Revenue. The Tribunal, in the petitioner's case reported in 2015 (184) ELT 214, had held that the supplies made are not covered by Notification No.2/95 at all and the Commissioner was in error in....