9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 1035 - AT - CustomsBenefit of Nil CVD in terms of N/N. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 as amended - benefit denied on the ground that the notification was not available on account of the same being amended vide N/N. 34/2015-CE dated 17.07.2015 and N/N. 37/2015 dt. 21.07.2015. HELD THAT - It is found that in the case of M/S. HLG TRADING, M/S. ADITYA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (CHENNAI IV) AND COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S. ADITYA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, M/S. MICROWEB ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED 2023 (10) TMI 1469 - CESTAT CHENNAI wherein it has been held that ' We are therefore of the view that the claim of the appellants for the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., as amended vide Notification No. 34/2015-C.E. and Notification No. 37/2015-C.E., is not entertainable and has therefore been correctly rejected by the Ld. first appellate authority. Hence, we do not find any case being made out for interfering with the impugned Orders-in-Appeal.' Thus, the appellant is clearly not eligible to claim the benefit of Nil CVD in terms of Notification No.30/2004-CE - there are no irregularity committed by the lower authorities in denying the above claim and therefore the impugned order does not call for any interference - appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appellant's claim for Nil CVD under Notification No.30/2004-CE. 2. Applicability of amended notifications and conditions therein. 3. Interpretation of exemption notifications and the burden of proof. 4. Impact of judicial precedents and the doctrine of merger. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Appellant's Claim for Nil CVD: The core issue revolves around whether the appellant is entitled to claim the benefit of Nil CVD under Notification No.30/2004-CE. The appellant argued that the benefit was previously extended to other importers under similar circumstances and relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in SRF Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs, which interpreted Section 3(1) of the Tariff Act regarding additional duty. However, the Revenue contended that the notification was not applicable due to amendments made by Notification Nos. 34/2015-CE and 37/2015-CE, which introduced additional conditions not fulfilled by the appellant. 2. Applicability of Amended Notifications and Conditions Therein: The Revenue argued that the appellant did not satisfy the conditions of the amended notifications, which required that the goods be manufactured from inputs that had suffered Central Excise duty. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not claim that the imported goods met this condition, thus failing to satisfy the requirements of the amended notifications. The Tribunal emphasized that exemption notifications must be strictly interpreted, and the burden lies on the claimant to prove compliance with all prescribed conditions. 3. Interpretation of Exemption Notifications and the Burden of Proof: The Tribunal reiterated the principle that exemption notifications should be strictly construed, as established by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Vs Dilip Kumar. The appellant's reliance on the SRF Ltd. decision was deemed inapplicable to the current facts, as it predated the amendments. The Tribunal highlighted that exemption is conditional and the claimant must adhere to the conditions, which the appellant failed to do. 4. Impact of Judicial Precedents and the Doctrine of Merger: The Tribunal considered various judicial precedents, including the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and the Supreme Court. The Tribunal acknowledged that once leave to appeal is granted by the Supreme Court, the finality of the judgment is put in jeopardy, but it remains binding unless stayed or suspended. The Tribunal also referred to the doctrine of merger, explaining that the decision of a lower court remains effective unless overturned by a higher court. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's claim for Nil CVD under Notification No.30/2004-CE was not valid due to non-fulfillment of the conditions introduced by the amended notifications. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's contentions and upheld the decision of the lower authorities, dismissing the appeal. The judgment emphasized the necessity for strict adherence to the conditions of exemption notifications and the binding nature of judicial precedents unless explicitly overturned.
|
