TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 1214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... impugned herein held that the goods imported are correctly classifiable under CTH 4811 9099 and rejected the classification adopted by the appellant which is under CTH 4911 9990. The benefit of Notification No. 26/2000-Cus. dated 01.03.2000, Sl. No. 5, was rejected and differential duty was confirmed with interest, besides imposing penalty. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2.1 Learned Counsel Shri B. Lakshmi Narasimhan appeared and argued the matter on behalf of the appellant. He submitted that the appellant is engaged in the business of trading paper products such as printed thermal paper rolls, paper articles, paper sheets, lottery tickets, etc., in India. They supplied printed thermal paper rolls to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsor mark printing for the purposes of the end customers machines to recognize when the transaction paper is to be cut; (c) The jumbo rolls are then slit into varying widths and lengths, depending on the end customer use and rolled to an appropriate length; and (d) Insert is placed in the roll enabling the product to be placed on a spool or dispenser in various machines. 2.2.2 After undertaking the above process, the goods were exported to India. On export, the supplier also obtained a Country of Origin Certificate on the basis of which the appellant has claimed the exemption. 2.3.1 He adverted to page 93 of the appeal paper book and referred to the Show Cause Notice dated 12.04.2010 issued by the Commissioner of Cus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Department, the issue has attained finality and the Department cannot reject the classification of the appellant and demand differential duty denying the benefit of exemption as per Notification No. 26/2000-Cus. That it is the settled position of law that when the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee for a previous period and the same has been accepted by the Department, it is not open for the Department to contend otherwise for subsequent periods. 2.3.3 Learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) M/s. Rosemerta Technologies Ltd. v. C.C. [2019 (11) TMI 1573 - CESTAT, Chandigarh]; (ii) M/s. Popular Carbonic Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. [2021 (8) TMI 240 - CESTAT, Chennai]; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oms, New Delhi reported in 2021 (8) TMI 906 - CESTAT, New Delhi. 2.4.2 He prayed that applying the above decisions, the impugned order requires to be set aside as the Show Cause Notice is issued without jurisdiction. 3. Shri S. Balakumar, Learned Authorized Representative, appeared and argued on behalf of the Department. 4. Heard both sides. 5.1 From the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the appellant as well as after perusal of the records, we find that the issue on merits has been decided in the appellant‟s own case in Order-in-Original No. 11678/2015-16, NS-I/AM-I JNCH dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva. The classification adopted by the appellant under CTH 4911 9990 has been a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar Carbonic Pvt. Ltd (supra), the Tribunal held that when the issue has been decided and has attained finality, the Department cannot be permitted to take a different stand for subsequent periods. A similar view was taken in M/s. Rosemerta Technologies Ltd. (supra). 6. From the above discussions, we hold that the correct classification of the impugned goods would be under CTH 4911 9990, as contended by the appellant. The issue on merits is found in favour of the appellant. 7.1 Learned Counsel for the appellant has also raised a technical issue that the entire proceedings are vitiated as the Show Cause Notice issued by the ADG, DRI is without jurisdiction. In M/s. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that th....