2017 (9) TMI 1210 - AT - Customs

Exemption from CVD - polyester knitted fabrics - Whether the appellants are entitled for benefit of exemption from payment of CVD in terms of N/N. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 or not? - Held that - reliance placed in the case of M/s. Artex Textile Pvt. Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Delhi (Faridabad) 2017 (9) TMI 1011 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH , where it was held that even if the claim of benefit under a particular notification is not made at the initial stage, the assessee cannot be estopped from claiming such benefit at a later stage - the appellant is entitled for the benefit of payment of CVD in terms of N/N. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 on polyester knitted fabrics. Valuation - On the basis of DRI alert whether the value of imported goods can be enhanced or not? - Held that - reliance placed in the appellant own case case Artex Textile Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C., Delhi-IV 2017 (9) TMI 1166 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH , where it was held that The value of imported goods in question cannot be enhanced on the basis of DRI alert and the basis of assessed bill of entry - the value of imported goods cannot be enhanced on the basis of DRI alert. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to exemption from payment of CVD under Notification No. 30/2004-CE.
2. Enhancement of the value of imported goods based on DRI alert.

Issue No. 1:
The first issue revolves around determining whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of exemption from payment of CVD in accordance with Notification No. 30/2004-CE. The Tribunal referenced a prior Final Order in the appellant's favor, citing a Supreme Court decision in a similar matter. The Tribunal highlighted that the condition of non-availment of Cenvat credit was pivotal, and the appellant was deemed entitled to the exemption. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the failure to claim the benefit at the initial stage did not preclude the appellant from claiming it later, as per a Supreme Court ruling in a related case. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant was eligible for the exemption and set aside the impugned orders on this basis.

Issue No. 2:
The second issue pertains to whether the value of imported goods can be increased based on a DRI alert. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the appellant's case where it was established that the value of imported goods could not be augmented due to a DRI alert. Relying on this precedent, the Tribunal deemed no merit in the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appeals, providing consequential relief to the appellants. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders on this ground as well. In conclusion, the impugned orders were overturned, and the appeals were granted with any necessary consequential relief.