9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 526 - AT - CustomsCVD exemption in terms of N/N. 30/2004-C.E. dated 9-7-2004 - import of 100% polyester blanket - non-fulfillment of condition of imported goods - Held that - the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of HLG Trading 2015 (11) TMI 313 - MADRAS HIGH COURT was under the challenge of vires of N/N. 34/2015-C.E. dated 17-7-2015 and N/N. 37/2015-C.E. dated 21-7-2015 which substituted the proviso condition relating to eligibility of exemption for Central Excise duty. The proviso afer Para 1 of exemption N/N. 30/2004-C.E. was substituted on 17-7-2015 vide N/N. 34/2015. Such substitution changed the scope of the condition and is subsequent to the decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court. The Hon ble Madras High Court dismissed the challenge of the assessee against amendment which substituted the condition - in the present case unamended proviso of the notifications are applicable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Eligibility for CVD exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004. Analysis: The appellant had imported 100% polyester blankets and were assessed for Countervailing Duty (CVD) under Section 3 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The dispute revolved around the eligibility of the appellant for CVD exemption as per Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004. The lower authorities contended that the appellant did not fulfill the condition for availing the exemption, which required that the credit of duty paid on inputs should not have been availed under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue argued that this condition was not met in the case of the imported goods, thus making the exemption unavailable to the appellant. The appellant's counsel relied on judgments by the Apex Court in SRF Ltd. and AIDEK Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd., stating that the matter of exemption availability in such situations had been settled by these cases. The counsel argued that based on the Supreme Court's rulings, the appeal should be allowed. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the lower authorities and cited the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of HLG Trading v. Union of India. Upon examination of the appeal records, the Tribunal noted that Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004, provided for full exemption of various excisable goods, subject to the condition that the exemption would not apply to goods for which the credit of duty on inputs had been availed under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal referred to a similar situation involving Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., where the Supreme Court had held that the exemption from CVD payment applied to the assessee in case of import. The Tribunal also considered the scope of Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Tariff Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the quantification of additional duty based on the hypothetical scenario of the imported article being manufactured or produced in India. Furthermore, the Tribunal examined the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of HLG Trading, which dealt with the challenge to the validity of certain notifications that altered the proviso condition related to exemption eligibility for Central Excise duty. The Tribunal observed that the substitution of the proviso post-dated the Supreme Court decisions mentioned earlier. The Madras High Court upheld the validity of the amendment, dismissing the assessee's challenge. In the current case, the Tribunal found that the unamended proviso of the notifications applied, and thus, followed the Supreme Court's precedent, ultimately allowing the appeal by overturning the impugned order.
|
