2017 (3) TMI 586 - AT - Customs

Levy of CVD - 100% Polyester Mink Blankets - whether the impugned goods do not attract CVD as the excise duty on the like articles if manufactured in India is exempted by N/N. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 - Held that - the same issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of M/s Monte Carlo Fashions Ltd. 2017 (2) TMI 526 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH , wherein this Tribunal held that the proviso of para 1 of exemption N/N. 30/2004-CE was substituted on 17.07.2015 vide N/N. 34/2015. Such substitution changed the scope of the condition - the impugned goods were imported by the appellant prior to 17.07.2015, therefore, the decision of M/s Monte Carlo Fashions Ltd. is squarely applicable to the facts of this case - the appellants are not liable to pay CVD - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Applicability of countervailing duty (CVD) on imported goods
- Interpretation of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004
- Precedent set by previous tribunal and court decisions

Analysis:

The appellant filed an appeal against the imposition of countervailing duty (CVD) on the clearance of 100% Polyester Mink Blankets, arguing that the goods should be exempt from CVD under Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004. The appellant contended that since the excise duty on similar articles manufactured in India was exempted, CVD should not be applicable to the imported goods. The Tribunal considered the submissions and referred to a previous case involving M/s Monte Carlo Fashions Ltd., where a similar issue was settled in favor of the appellant.

In the case of M/s Monte Carlo Fashions Ltd., the Tribunal observed that the exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE applies to the assessee in the case of import, as per the interpretation of section 3(1) of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Tribunal also referenced a decision by the Hon'ble Madras High Court regarding the vires of amendments to the exemption conditions, noting that the unamended provisos of the notifications were applicable in the present case. Following the Supreme Court's precedent, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.

Since the imported goods in this case were brought in before the relevant amendment date, the Tribunal held that the decision in the M/s Monte Carlo Fashions Ltd. case applied directly. Consequently, the appellants were found not liable to pay CVD, and the demand against them was deemed unsustainable. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief deemed necessary.