SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:-A.S. Anand, CJI, Jagannadha Rao and R.C. Lahoti, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 4275 of 1999. D/d. 1.12.2000.

Commissioner of Cus. (Ex.), Mumbai - Petitioner

Versus

Nicco Batteries Ltd. - Respondent

Exemption -

JUDGMENT

The argument now raised by the learned Additional Solicitor General was not canvassed before any of the Departmental Authorities or even before the Tribunal. It is also not denied that earlier four consignments of the respondent were cleared by the Department and benefit of exemption notification was granted to the respondent in each one of those cases. Admittedly, there is no distinction in the case of the consignment under consideration and the earlier consignments. All are covered by the same exemption notification. It was at the stage of the clearance of the fifth consignment that benefit of exemption notification was sought to be denied to the respondent under the orders of the superior officer without assigning reasons and the Tribunal rightly found fault with it.

2. We have carefully perused the orders of the Authorities as well as the order of the Tribunal. In the established facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal do not call for any interference.

3. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.

.