9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 461 - AT - CustomsImposition of additional customs duty on import of Raw Silk fabric - Applicability of N/N. 30/2004-CE dated 09/07/2004 as amended by N/N. 34/2015-CE dated 17/07/2015 and N/N. 37/2015-CE dated 21/07/2015 - HELD THAT - The subject imports were self assessed by the appellant claiming NIL CVD for the imported goods as the said goods were exempt from payment of excise duty vide N/N. 30/04-CE as amended read with N/N 34/2015-CE dated 17.7.2015 and 37/2015-CE dated 21.7.15. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of SRF Ltd. 2015 (4) TMI 561 - SUPREME COURT had held that notification conditions that the import goods were incapable of meeting cannot be thrusted upon thereby implying that the appellant in the present case had deemed to have satisfied the same and eligible for exemption from levy of said Additional Duty of Customs on the import goods. The amendment made vide N/N. 34/2015-CE dated 17/7/15 provides a condition qua payment of duty on inputs and non-availment of Cenvat Credit by the manufacturer. Therefore the sweep of the judgment of SRF Ltd. is not affected. N/N. 37/2015-CE dated 21.7.15 further relaxes the condition that the nil payment of duty on input would also qualify as payment of duty. Here again too these amendments do not bring about any change to the implication and the meaning as flows out of the apex court s orders. The Honb le Supreme Court in the case of AIDEK Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (3) TMI 690 - SUPREME COURT has held that for the purpose of levy of duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act actual production or manufacture of a like article in India is not necessary. It is to be imagined that article imported has been manufactured or produced in India and it need to be seen what amount of excise duty was leviable thereon. Honb le Supreme Court held that the importer is to be treated as a manufacturer of the goods and thereafter the amount of Excise duty/Additional Duty that is required to be paid is to be determined. Conclusion - The conditions which cannot be complied with by the importer should not be imposed as established in the SRF Ltd. case. There are no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and accordingly the same is sustained - appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal question considered in this judgment was the applicability of specific notifications regarding the imposition of additional customs duty on the import of raw silk fabric. Specifically, the Tribunal examined whether the imported goods were eligible for exemption from the levy of Additional Duty of Customs under Notification No. 30/2004-CE as amended by Notification No. 34/2015-CE and Notification No. 37/2015-CE. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether the conditions outlined in these notifications could be imposed on the appellant, given the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the SRF Ltd. case. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework centers around Notification No. 30/2004-CE and its amendments, which exempt certain goods from additional customs duty, contingent on specific conditions. The Tribunal referenced several precedents, notably the Supreme Court's decision in the SRF Ltd. case, which established that conditions impossible for the importer to meet should not be imposed. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal interpreted the notifications and the SRF Ltd. precedent to mean that if the conditions of the notification are inherently unfulfillable by the importer, these conditions should not be enforced. The Tribunal emphasized that the amendments introduced by Notifications No. 34/2015-CE and 37/2015-CE did not alter the fundamental applicability of the SRF Ltd. judgment. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the subject imports were self-assessed by the appellant with a claim of NIL CVD, based on the exemption provided by the notifications. The Tribunal noted that the precedent set by the Supreme Court in SRF Ltd. supported the appellant's position, as the conditions of the notification could not be applied to the imported goods. Application of Law to Facts: Applying the legal principles from the SRF Ltd. case, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had satisfied the conditions of the notifications as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue's appeal did not present any new arguments or evidence that would warrant a different conclusion. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's arguments, which were largely reiterations of previous grounds that had already been settled in favor of the respondent in multiple cases. The Tribunal highlighted that the Revenue's appeal lacked substantive grounds to challenge the established legal precedent. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the exemption from the additional customs duty, as the conditions of the notifications could not be imposed given the precedent set by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the impugned orders. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal preserved the legal reasoning that conditions which cannot be complied with by the importer should not be imposed, as established in the SRF Ltd. case. The core principle established is that the importer is entitled to the benefits of exemptions if the conditions of the notification are inherently unfulfillable. The Tribunal's final determination was to dismiss the Revenue's appeal and sustain the impugned orders, thereby affirming the appellant's eligibility for the exemption from additional customs duty.
|
