9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 1071 - AT - CustomsBenefit of N/N. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 on import of silk fabrics - denial on the ground of non-fulfilment of condition of the notification, that no CENVAT Credit of duty paid on inputs shall be taken by the importer - HELD THAT - The condition as per the notification is that the importer should not have availed the CENVAT Credit on the inputs. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the respondent has not availed any such credit. However, the reason for denying the benefit of the notification is that in the case of the appellant no such credit is admissible being a trader. The Tribunal had occasion to analyse the very same issue in the case of CC CHENNAI (SEAPORT-EXPORT) AND ENTERPRISES INTERNATIONAL LTD. VERSUS SUN STAR INTERNATIONAL AND OTHERS 2015 (8) TMI 191 - CESTAT CHENNAI where it was held that the respondents are eligible for CVD exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004. The appeal is without any merits. The Department appeal is dismissed.
Issues involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE Summary: The case involved the issue of whether the appellant, who imported silk fabrics, was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE. The Department contended that the appellant did not fulfill the condition of the notification as they had availed CENVAT Credit on inputs, which made them ineligible for the benefit. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order, leading to the Department appealing to the Tribunal. The Authorized Representative for the Appellant argued that the appellant, being a trader, did not avail CENVAT Credit on inputs as the goods did not attract Excise Duty. Therefore, they should be eligible for the concessional rate of CVD as per the notification. On the other hand, the Respondent's counsel argued that the goods imported were eligible for exemption under the notification and cited relevant Tribunal and Apex Court decisions to support their position. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal analyzed the issue and referred to previous Apex Court decisions to conclude that the appellant was indeed eligible for the CVD exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Department's appeal, stating that it lacked merits. The decision was based on the interpretation of the notification and relevant legal precedents.
|
