2017 (11) TMI 951 - AT - Customs

CVD - 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 - polyester knitted fabrics - Whether the appellants are entitled for benefit of exemption from payment of CVD in terms of Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 or not? - Held that - the issue has been settled in their favor 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 reliance was placed in the case of Share Medical Care vs. UOI 2007 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , 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 Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 on polyester knitted fabrics - decided in favor of appellant. Valuation of imported goods - On the basis of DRI alert whether the value of imported goods can be enhanced or not? - Held that - the said issue came in the appellant s own case for the earlier period 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 - decided in favor of appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

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

Issue No. 1: Entitlement for exemption from payment of CVD under Notification No.30/2004-CE:
The Tribunal referred to a previous Final Order in the appellant's case where it was established that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of payment of CVD under Notification No.30/2004-CE. The Tribunal cited a Supreme Court decision regarding a similar notification and ruled in favor of the appellant. It was noted that even if the benefit claim was not made initially, the appellant could still claim it later. The Tribunal held that the appellant is indeed entitled to the exemption and set aside the impugned orders based on this ground.

Issue No. 2: Enhancement of imported goods' value based on DRI alert:
In a previous order concerning the same appellant, the Tribunal had decided that the value of imported goods cannot be enhanced based on a DRI alert. The Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and set it aside. Following the earlier decision in the appellant's case, the Tribunal ruled that the value of imported goods cannot be increased due to a DRI alert. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on both issues, confirming their entitlement to the exemption from CVD under Notification No.30/2004-CE and rejecting the enhancement of imported goods' value based on a DRI alert. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief.