2017 (6) TMI 896 - AT - Central Excise

CVD exemption - import of Polyester Knitted Fabrics and PVC Coated Fabrics - N/N. 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 - denial of exemption on the ground that the credit availed on inputs - Held that - identical issue was decided in the case of Monte Carlo Fashions Ltd., Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. Versus CC, Amritsar 2017 (6) TMI 612 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH , where The proviso after 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, unamended proviso of the notifications are applicable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of benefit of Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 for exemption from duty.

Analysis:
The appellants appealed against orders denying them the benefit of Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004, seeking exemption from duty on imported Polyester Knitted Fabrics and PVC Coated Fabrics. The Tribunal considered the submissions, noting that the issue had been previously decided in the appellant's own case and in another case. Referring to the earlier decisions, the Tribunal highlighted that the exemption under the said notification applies if the credit of duty on inputs has not been taken under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal also cited a Supreme Court decision regarding the quantification of additional duty, emphasizing the applicability of the exemption in case of imports. Additionally, the Tribunal discussed a decision of the Madras High Court regarding the substitution of a proviso condition in a subsequent notification, which altered the scope of the exemption condition. Based on the precedents and legal interpretations, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals with consequential relief, if any.

This judgment provides a detailed analysis of the interpretation and application of Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 concerning duty exemption on specific imported goods. The Tribunal considered previous decisions, including its own and those of higher courts, to determine the eligibility criteria for the exemption. By referencing legal principles and precedents, the Tribunal clarified the conditions under which the exemption applies and the implications of subsequent amendments to related notifications. The judgment underscores the importance of legal interpretations and consistency in applying exemption provisions to ensure fair treatment and adherence to established legal principles.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision in this case highlights the significance of legal interpretations and precedents in determining the eligibility for duty exemptions under specific notifications. By considering previous decisions and legal principles, the Tribunal provided a comprehensive analysis to set aside the impugned orders and grant relief to the appellants. The judgment emphasizes the need for consistency and adherence to established legal principles in interpreting and applying exemption provisions to ensure fair treatment and compliance with the law.