2017 (10) TMI 1265 - AT - Customs

Exemption form SAD - N/N. 30/2004-CE - demand on the ground that the importers have not been able to satisfy the condition of non-availment of credit by the manufacturer, in terms of the said notification - Held that - The issue having been decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court, in the case of M/s SRF Ltd., M/s ITC Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, Commissioner of Customs (Import And General) , New Delhi 2015 (4) TMI 561 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that only those conditions could be satisfied which were possible of satisfaction and the condition which was not possible of satisfaction had to be treated as not satisfied - the judicial discipline requires the same to be followed - It is not the Revenue s case that any stay has been granted against the said order or their review petition has been allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 30/2004-CE regarding exemption from Special Additional Duty (SAD) for importers of 100% Polyester Knitted Fabrics.
2. Applicability of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of SRF Limited vs. CCE on the above notification.
3. Validity of the Revenue's argument against following the Supreme Court's decision.
4. Judicial discipline and the requirement to follow Supreme Court decisions.

Analysis:
1. The case involved importers of 100% Polyester Knitted Fabrics seeking exemption from Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No. 30/2004-CE. The demands were confirmed against the importers for not satisfying the condition of non-availment of credit by the manufacturer as per the notification.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the Supreme Court's decision in SRF Limited vs. CCE, where it was held that the condition of non-availment of credit for imported goods cannot be satisfied, thus extending the benefit to importers. The Revenue disputed this decision, stating that a review petition/revision application had been filed against the Supreme Court's judgment.

3. The Revenue argued against following the Supreme Court's decision, claiming errors apparent on record and interpretational issues. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this argument. It noted that the Revenue did not dispute the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision to the present case and emphasized the necessity of following judicial discipline by adhering to Supreme Court decisions.

4. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, rejecting the Revenue's appeals. It highlighted that since no stay had been granted against the Supreme Court's decision or the review petition allowed, there was no valid reason to deviate from the established judicial precedent. The judgment emphasized the importance of respecting and following higher court decisions in maintaining judicial discipline.