HCL COMNET LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Though these revision petitions are placed before us for admission, by consent, those were heard for final disposal at this stage.

(2.) In the memorandum of revision petitions, the petitioner have raised several questions of law. Sri K.P. Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, however, submits that only the following questions deserve consideration:

(3.) Sri K.P. Kumar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, fairly submitted that the case of the petitioners is not covered by the Notification No. FD 116 CSL 2006(9): , dated 31-3-2006 under Sl. No. 12 bearing Heading 8529.10 under the description Aerials, Antennas and parts; parts of goods specified in sub-headings 8525.10, 8525.20 and 8527.90, and therefore, the question raised in the memorandum of revisions, based on this notification does not arise in the present case.