9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 552 - AT - CustomsAdditional duty of Customs - N/N. 30/2004 dated 09.07.2004 as amended - denial of exemption on the ground that credit of excise duty or additional duty of customs on inputs or Service Tax on input services has been taken - Held that - similar issue of eligibility of importer for exemption under N/N. 30/2004 CE came up before the Tribunal recently in M/s Artex Textiles Pvt Ltd 2017 (9) TMI 1205 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where by relying on the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of SRF Ltd. 2015 (4) TMI 561 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that appellants were entitled to exemption from payment of CVD in terms of N/N. 6/02. Legal position brought in by the amendment in the said proviso of Notification No.30/2004 - mplication of the amendment has been brought-out in the circular dated 21.07.2015 for better appreciation - Held that - circular makes it clear that the amendment carried-out basically to make it clear that equal treatment should be given to the domestic manufacturers vis-a-vis importers. In other words, the amendment is to make the intention clear that the said conditions are to be satisfied by the manufacturers of such goods and not the buyer/importer of such goods. From the contents of the circular and also amended entry of the proviso in Notification No.30/2004, we note that the legal position laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court on more than one occasions is continued to be relevant and applicable to the present case also. Admittedly, there is no Cenvat credit availed by the manufacturer of the imported goods, neither the buyer/importer availed any such credit. As such, we find the amendment will not act as a bar for extending benefit to the present impugned goods from payment of CV duty. The legal position with reference to levy of additional duty of customs was examined at length by the Hon ble Supreme Court in M/s Aidek Tourism Services Pvt Ltd 2015 (3) TMI 690 - SUPREME COURT and it was held that for the purpose of saying what amount, if any, of additional duty is leviable under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, it has to be imagined that the articles imported had been manufactured or produced in India and then to see what amount of excise duty was leviable thereon. The exemption of additional duty of customs extended to the respondent by the impugned order is legal and proper - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption of additional duty of customs under Notification No. 30/2004. 2. Applicability of amendments to the notification and their impact on the exemption. 3. Legal precedents and their relevance to the case. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility for Exemption of Additional Duty of Customs: The respondents filed a bill of entry for the clearance of imported "Plain Silk Fabrics Undyed and Unprinted" and claimed exemption of additional duty of customs under Sr.No.1 of Notification No.30/2004 dated 09.07.2004. The exemption was conditional upon the excisable goods being manufactured from inputs on which appropriate duty of excise or additional duty of customs and service tax had been paid, and no credit of such duties had been taken by the manufacturer. The Revenue denied the exemption on the grounds that the importer did not fulfill this condition. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original orders disallowing the exemption and allowed the benefit to the respondent, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in SRF Ltd. (2015) and the dismissal of the Revenue's review petition. 2. Applicability of Amendments to the Notification: The Revenue argued that Notification No.34/15 CE dated 17.07.2015 amended the proviso in Notification No.30/2004, clarifying that the exemption was not available to importers who are not manufacturers. The amendment was intended to ensure that the conditions of the notification applied to manufacturers and not to buyers/importers. The Revenue cited the Madras High Court's decision in Prashray Overseas Pvt Ltd (2016) to support their position. However, the Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had dismissed the review petition against the SRF Ltd. decision, affirming the legal provisions of the notification. The Tribunal also referred to the Enterprises International Ltd. case, where the Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's decision, which was in favor of the importer. 3. Legal Precedents and Their Relevance: The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court's judgment in Aidek Tourism Services Pvt Ltd (2015), which clarified the levy of additional duty of customs under Section 3(1) of the Tariff Act. The Court held that the duty chargeable would be the excise duty leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India. The Tribunal also examined the case of Enterprises International Ltd., where it was determined that the exemption under Notification No.30/2004 was applicable to imported goods, provided no Cenvat credit had been availed by the manufacturer. The Tribunal concluded that the legal position laid down by the Supreme Court in SRF Ltd. and other cases was applicable to the present case, and the amendment to the notification did not bar the extension of the exemption to the imported goods. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming that the exemption of additional duty of customs extended to the respondent was legal and proper. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decisions, which established that the conditions of the exemption notification should be interpreted in favor of the importer, provided no Cenvat credit was availed by the manufacturer. The amendments to the notification were intended to clarify the conditions but did not change the legal position established by the Supreme Court.
|
