9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 191 - AT - CustomsAdmissibility of CVD exemption on imported goods - import of silk yarn, silk fabrics - Benefit of Notification No.30/2004-CE dt. 9.7.2004 - Held that - Supreme Court has clearly considered all the previous decisions of Apex Court including the decision in the case of Motoram Tolaram Vs UOI (1999 (8) TMI 68 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). Therefore, the revenue relying on the above case law and also the LB decision in the case of M/s.Priyesh Chemicals & Metals (2000 (5) TMI 72 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI) are not relevant. In view of the latest decision of Apex court in SRF case 2015 (4) TMI 561 - SUPREME COURT & AIDEK Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (3) TMI 690 - SUPREME COURT , the issue of CVD exemption under Notfn. 30/2004 on imported goods has attained finality. This Tribunal Bench decisions in the case of M/s.Prashray Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC Chennai 2008 (9) TMI 666 - CESTAT, CHENNAI stands confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court. By respectfully following the ratio of the Apex Court decisions, we hold that the respondents are eligible for CVD exemption under Notification 30/2004-CE dt. 9.7.2004. There is no infirmity in the orders of LAA - Decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of CVD exemption on imported silk yarn and silk fabrics under Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004. 2. Consideration of relevant case laws and Tribunal decisions. 3. Applicability of conditions stipulated in the exemption notification to imported goods. 4. Impact of pending appeals and non-uploading of notifications in the ICES-EDI system. Detailed Analysis: 1. Admissibility of CVD Exemption on Imported Goods: The core issue revolves around the admissibility of the Central Value Added Tax (CVD) exemption on imported silk yarn and silk fabrics under Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004. The respondents had filed Bills of Entries for these goods, which were assessed without extending the CVD exemption. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the exemption, relying on various Tribunal decisions, including the Division Bench order in Prashray Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC Chennai. The Revenue challenged these decisions, arguing that the exemption should not apply to imported goods, especially when the conditions of the notification could not be verified. 2. Consideration of Relevant Case Laws and Tribunal Decisions: The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Priyesh Chemicals & Metals vs. CCE Bangalore and that the decision in Prashray Overseas Pvt. Ltd. was not final, as it was pending appeal before the High Court. The Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on Tribunal decisions, such as Nhava Sheva vs. Ashima Dyecot Ltd. and Mapsa Tapes Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC Delhi, to grant the exemption. The Tribunal found that these decisions were binding and had not been set aside by higher courts, thus supporting the admissibility of the exemption. 3. Applicability of Conditions Stipulated in the Exemption Notification: The crux of the argument was whether the conditions of the exemption notification, specifically the non-availment of Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods, applied to imported goods. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court, in cases like SRF Ltd. vs. CC Chennai and AIDEK Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC New Delhi, had settled the issue, confirming that importers could avail of the exemption if they met the stipulated conditions. The Tribunal emphasized that the conditions were not applicable in the case of imports, as no Cenvat credit was availed on the raw materials used. 4. Impact of Pending Appeals and Non-Uploading of Notifications in the ICES-EDI System: The Revenue argued that the Tribunal's decision in Prashray Overseas Pvt. Ltd. should not be relied upon as it was pending appeal. However, the Tribunal maintained that unless a stay was granted by the High Court, the decision remained binding. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted the issue of the non-uploading of Notification No. 30/2004-CE in the ICES-EDI system, which had led to automatic assessments without the exemption. The Tribunal urged the Chairman, CBEC, and DG (Systems), CBEC, to rectify this issue to prevent future disputes. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s orders, confirming the admissibility of the CVD exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE for the imported silk yarn and silk fabrics. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals, emphasizing the binding nature of the Tribunal's previous decisions and the Supreme Court's rulings. The Tribunal also addressed the systemic issue of non-uploading of notifications in the ICES-EDI system, urging corrective action to avoid recurring disputes.
|
