Judgment

Arjan Kumar Sikri, J.

1. In all these appeals the question of law which arises for determination is identical and even the Assessee is the same. However, it so happened that the same issue was considered by the Delhi Bench as well as West Regional Bench at Mumbai of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'CEGAT') and they have given conflicting opinions. Insofar as Mumbai Bench of CEGAT is concerned, it has decided the issue in favour of the Assessee. However, the Delhi Bench, while taking a contrary view, which is in favour of the Revenue, has not agreed with the Mumbai Bench of CEGAT for the reasons mentioned therein, which shall be noted at the appropriate stage.

2. The issue relates to the eligibility for concessional rate of additional duty [also known as Counter Vailing Duty (CVD)] in terms of Notification No. 64/93-CE. The Assessee is in the business of tourism, which operates taxis to ferry the tourists from one place to another. Way back in the year 1995, it had imported Honda Accord cars and filed refund claim on the ground that it was eligible for concessional rate of CVD in terms of the aforesaid Notification. In this refund claim th