2025 (10) TMI 338

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Radhakrishnan For the Respondent(s) : Mr.Rajendran Raghavan Standing Counsel ORDER This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 19.07.2021 and for a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to extend the benefit of Sl.No.1387 of Notification No.46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011 in respect of the CCT....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... considered and the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing in this case. 4. The respondents have filed a counter. The respondents have taken a stand that there has been a mis declaration and at paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit it has been stated as follows: "11.I submit that regards to Ground J raised by the Petitioner the HS code for the goods declared as Network v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stoms Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [CESTAT] against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs and the CESTAT had rejected the claim made by the petitioner and held that the classification under CTH 85258090 is in order. The same issue has been put against the petitioner with respect to the present assessment also covered under the bill of entry dated 21.04.2021. In view of the abo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the ASEAN India Free Trade Agreement. 8. The specific ground that has been raised by the petitioner is that the facts before the CESTAT was completely different from the facts in the present case since that was a case which involved the CCTV cameras imported from the republic of Korea which was not covered by any exemption and whereas in the case in hand, the shipment originated from Vietnam ....