9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 761 - AT - CustomsExemption benefit under Notification No.30/2004 dated 09.07.2004 - import of undyed and unprinted silk fabrics - non-fulfillment of condition stipulated in notification - Held that - It is noted that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of SRF Ltd. vs. Commr. Of Customs, Chennai 2015 (4) TMI 561 - SUPREME COURT on the identical issue, allowed the appeal of the importer where 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. - Following decision of Thermax Private Limited v. Collector of Customs (Bombay), New Customs House 1992 (8) TMI 156 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and Hyderabad Industries Limited v. Union of India 1999 (5) TMI 29 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and AIDEK Tourism Services Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2015 (3) TMI 690 - SUPREME COURT appellants were entitled to exemption from payment of CVD in terms of Notification No. 6/02. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the Order of the Ld.Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Claiming exemption under Notification No.30/2004 for additional customs duty (CVD). Analysis: The case involved the issue of whether the respondents, who imported undyed and unprinted silk fabrics, were entitled to claim exemption under Notification No.30/2004 for determining the additional customs duty (CVD). The appellate authority initially denied the exemption, but the Commissioner (Appeals) later allowed the appeals of the respondents, leading to the Revenue filing appeals. The main contention of the Revenue was that the importer cannot claim the benefit of the excise notification if the conditions stipulated are not fulfilled. However, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent cited various decisions in favor of the respondents, including cases like Prashray Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and SRF Ltd., where similar issues were resolved in favor of the importers. The Tribunal examined the specific terms of the subject notification and the conditions attached to it. It was noted that during the period of dispute, an Indian manufacturer of yarn or fabric would not have been required to claim Cenvat credit on his input due to the input not being chargeable to duty of excise. In light of this, the demand of CVD on the yarn and fabric imported by the appellants was deemed unsustainable in law. The Tribunal referred to the judgment in the case of SRF Ltd. where similar reasoning was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, emphasizing the interpretation of Section 3(1) of the Tariff Act and the conditions for levy of additional duty. The Tribunal concluded that the appeals were squarely covered by the judgments cited and allowed the appeals of the importers, setting aside the demand of CVD raised by the authorities. In the final decision, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in the open court, confirming the dismissal of the appeals and upholding the exemption from payment of CVD for the importers based on the relevant notifications and legal interpretations provided in the judgments referred to during the proceedings.
|
