2026 (6) TMI 264

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ported the above said goods and filed self-assessed Bills of Entry for the clearance of the goods under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The brief facts are alleging that the Respondent had adopted wrong serial number and schedule of Notification, in respect of IGST and short paid the IGST, proceedings were initiated and Adjudication authority as per Order-in-Original dated 27.04.2020 rejected the claim for lower IGST and confirmed the demand of differential duty and the Commissioner (Appeal) as per the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 18.01.2020 allowed the appeal and dropped the demand. The said order was reviewed and as per Order-in-Review cum Authorization dated 12.04.2022 the present appeal is filed before the Tribunal. 3. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....omitted. Notification No. 43/2017 IT (RT) dated 14.11.2017 In Schedule I- 5% .................... (Ixxxix) in Sl. No. 369A, for the entry in column (3), the entry "Crank shaft for sewing machine, bearing housings; plain shaft bearings: gears and gearing: ball or roller screws shall be substituted; ...................... In Schedule IV: ....................... ....................... (vi) in Sl. No. 135. for the entry in column (3), the entry Transmission shafts (including cam shafts and crank shafts) and cranks (excluding crankshaft for sewing machine): gear boxes and other speed changers, Converters, flywheels and pulleys, including pulley blocks: clutches and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bona fide interpretational difference. The claim that Revenue: "made up" the case is not supported by evidence, is unnecessarily aggressive, and there is no proof of any hidden motive. Learned AR also draws our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Cus. (import), Mumbai Vs. M/s Dilip Kumar & Company (2018 (361) E.L.T 571 (S.C) and submits that for claiming the benefit of exemption notification, the burden of proof is on the importer to establish eligibility for exemption, which has not been discharged with legal certainty. 6. Learned Authorized Representative for the Respondent submits that as per the Revenue appeal, it is categorically stated that there is no dispute in classification of....