2025 (6) TMI 1680

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ard learned counsel for the appellant and learned authorized representative for the Revenue and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the Final Order, classification of the disputed goods was decided against the appellant and in paragraph 15 of the Final Order, it has been, inter alia, recorded as follows: "15. The appellant's claim of benefit of notification no. 24/2005-Cus dated 1.3.2015, Notification no. 12/2012-CE and Notification no. 21/2012-Cus are all basd on their claim of this classification. Having decided the classification in favour of the revenue, we cannot hold that the appellant will be entitled to the benefit of these notifications." 4. He submitted that the appellant's claim of full....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner of Customs [2008 (224) ELT 349 (SC)] in support of his contention. 7. Learned authorized representative for the Revenue submitted that the appellant is seeking re-adjudication of the matter which is not permissible in an application for rectification of mistake. He submits that there is no error apparent on record in the Final Order and therefore, the application may be rejected. Since the appellant had not imported Non-conventional energy devices or systems but only some goods which can be used in such systems, S.No. 332 of the Notification no. 12/2012-CE would not apply. As far as the alternative prayer of the appellant seeking exemption under S.No.332A of Notification no. 12/2012-CE for the Additional Duty of Customs is concerned, h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cation of the goods (goods could fall under any Chapter) if the goods were used within the factory of manufacture to manufacture goods in List 8 of the notification. If the goods are not so used, but the procedure prescribed as per condition no. 2 was fulfilled, the exemption would still be available. In this case undisputedly, the goods were manufactured outside India and imported. So, they were not used within the factory of manufacture. Undisputedly, the condition no. 2 was also not followed because they were imported. The submission of the learned counsel is that since the goods are imported, that condition would not apply. He placed reliance on Lohia Sheet Products. We have carefully gone through this judgment. The facts of that case w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee as held by the larger, five member bench of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Cus. (Import), Mumbai versus Dilip Kumar & Company [2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.)]. In view of the conflicting decisions regarding strict and liberal interpretations of exemption notifications, the matter was decided by the larger bench of Supreme Court in Dilip Kumar. This decision was followed by a bench of this Tribunal in Solgen Energy Pvt. Ltd. to interpret and apply notification no. 12/2012-CE (S.No. 332A read with condition no. 2). We concur with that decision. 12. Respectfully following Dilip Kumar and Solgen Energy Pvt. Ltd., we find that the benefit of exemption notification no. 12/2012-CE (S.No.....