1994 (7) TMI 84

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed. A statement has been made in the review petition that the benefit accruing pursuant to these notifications had really not been granted to the appellant. Shri Dholakia appearing for the appellant contends that he had made no such submission as well. As to this submission, it may be observed that the notings in the minute book of both of us show that such statement had been made by Shri Dholakia. Be that as it may, as the appellant had claimed exemption under these notifications and it has been now submitted that the exemption has not been granted, it has to be decided whether the appellant was entitled to the exemption under these notifications. 2. The exemption relates to payment of customs duty in respect of manufacturing of rod bus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....A. No. 335/86 inasmuch as in the two notifications under consideration there is only a formal change in the purport of the Notification No. 281/76-Cus. - the same being that what was stated in the 1976 Notification in descriptive form is contained in the two notifications in tabular form. The denial of the exemption visualised by two notifications under consideration by Collector of Customs is, according to Shri Dholakia, misconceived; indeed, arbitrary. 4. Let us see whether the aforesaid contention of Shri Dholakia merits acceptance. For this purpose we have to know what had been stated in the 1976 notification. For our purpose the following excerpts of that notification which at the relevant time was connected with Heading No. 84.06 ....