9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 570 - AT - CustomsImport of undyed and unprinted silk fabrics - Exemption from CVD subject to not availing Cenvat Credit on inputs - Benefit under Notification No.30/2004 dated 09.07.2004 - Held that - I find that the issue is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the case of M/s SRF Ltd. M/s ITC Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs Chennai Commissioner of Customs (Import And General) New Delhi 2015 (4) TMI 561 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that when the credit under the CENVAT Rules is not admissible to the appellant question of fulfilling the aforesaid condition does not arise - the CEGAT found that only those conditions could be satisfied which were possible of satisfaction and the condition which was not possible of satisfaction had to be treated as not satisfied. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Import of undyed and unprinted silk fabrics, exemption under Notification No.30/2004 for additional customs duty (CVD), denial of exemption by appellate authority, appeal allowed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue's appeal against the order. Analysis: The case involved the import of undyed and unprinted silk fabrics with a claim for exemption under Notification No.30/2004 for determining additional customs duty (CVD). The appellate authority initially denied the exemption, but the Commissioner (Appeals) later allowed the appeal of the respondent, leading the Revenue to file an appeal against this decision. The main contention of the Revenue was that the importer cannot claim the benefit of the excise notification for CVD if the conditions stipulated in the notification are not fulfilled. However, the issue was found to be well-settled based on various decisions cited by the respondent, such as Prashray Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and SRF Ltd. The Tribunal highlighted that during the disputed period, an Indian manufacturer of yarn or fabric would not have been required to claim Cenvat credit on the input, as the input was not chargeable to excise duty. Therefore, the demand for CVD on the imported yarn and fabric was deemed unsustainable in law, leading to the appeal being allowed. The judgment referred to the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of SRF Ltd. vs. Commr. Of Customs, Chennai, which further supported the principle laid down in previous cases. The Court emphasized that the duty under Section 3(1) of the Tariff Act is in addition to the Customs duty and clarified the conditions for the levy of additional duty on imported articles. It was established that for the purpose of attracting additional duty on imported manufactured or produced articles, the actual manufacture or production of a like article in India is not necessary. The judgment concluded that the appellants were entitled to exemption from paying CVD as per Notification No. 6/2002, and the demand raised by the authorities was set aside accordingly. In the final decision, the Tribunal upheld the Order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The judgment reiterated the settled legal position based on previous decisions and the specific conditions of the excise notification, ultimately leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.
|
