2005 (8) TMI 197

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2000-Cus. (Sl. No. 267) which reads as under :- "267 8529.90 Parts (including Populated PCBs) of - (i) transmission apparatus other than apparatus for radio broadcasting or television transmission apparatus incorporating reception apparatus;" The original authority disallowed the exemption on the ground that the exemption is meant only for transmission apparatus. The Commissioner (Appeals), in his Order-in-Appeal, after going through the subsequent Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. (Entry 292) held that the intention of the Government is to cover parts and both transmissions and reception apparatus which is evidenced by the fact that the subsequent Notification clearly provides for the description "transmission apparatus incorpor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....colon needs to appear as the latter description viz., transmission apparatus incorporating reception apparatus is a separate description and would not qualify "radio broadcasting or television" and also that the same entry after television, providing for "transmission apparatus incorporating reception apparatus" as a separate description and in view of the same the imported items were eligible for exemption. Whereas it is evident on record that the exemption/concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 16/2000 dated 1-3-2000 covers only parts of transmission apparatus and would not cover parts of reception apparatus as the intention of the Notification has to be interpreted strictly according to the phrases and wordings of the Notifi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated 18-9-2000 is after six months and hence the same is hit by limitation of time. Thus, the Commissioner's (Appeals) decision in allowing the claim of refund on the ground that the endorsement of the concerned officer of the department on the protest letter dated 18-9-2000 to the AC, ACC, Bangalore has not been disputed by the Department cannot be accepted. (iii) Further the importer needs to challenge an order of assessment for issuance of speaking order as a right course of remedy instead of preferring an refund claim under Section 27 in terms of latest decision in the case of Faxtel Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin reported in 2003 (155) E.L.T. 515 (Tribunal-Bangalore). 3. Shri Ganesh Hanuvar, ld. SDR ....