2026 (3) TMI 1654

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Ms. Rajni Menon, ld. Deputy Commissioner for the Respondent. We have carefully perused the documents placed on record and also the judicial precedents relied upon during the course of arguments. 3. Brief and relevant facts as could be gathered upon a perusal of Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal and upon hearing the parties, are that the Appellant had imported goods declared as 'D&W Chicken Spicy Sausages' under Bill of Entry No.6592089 dt. 19.04.2012 by classifying the same under CTH 16010000; the same was assessed to Basic Customs Duty (BCD) at 8% in terms of Notification No.125 supra (Sl.No.33) apart from CVD at 6% on Retail Sale Price (RSP) value and Special CVD at Nil ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for effective rate of duty at 8% for all the goods of Chapter 16, however Note 2 of the said Notification restricted the applicability of the said Notification, which reads as under : '2. Nothing contained in this notification shall be applicable to goods specified in the ANNEXURE.' Sl.No.233 of the Annexure mentioned at Note 2 covers Heading/Sub-Heading under 160100, which means the imported goods which were classified under 16010000 were not eligible for exemption under the above Notification. 6. It is the case of the Appellant that it had inadvertently claimed benefit under Notification No.125 supra, but however it was eligible for the benefit of Notification No.26/2000-Cus. dt. 01.03.2000, which claim was made for the fir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r would be left with no choice but to reject un-supported claims since in matters of exemption claims, it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in CC (Import) Mumbai Vs Dilip Kumar & Company [2018 (361) ELT 577 (SC)] that all conditions prescribed in the Notification should be fulfilled. The claim that the First Appellate Authority should have asked for the production, etc. will not help in any way. What is to be done should be done only when it matters; it is not as though the Appellant was unaware of procedural requirements in this regard. Hence, we do not find any fallacy in the rejection of the Appellant's claim by the First Appellate Authority. Also, when an alternate claim was made, the Appellant should have furnished all the documentar....