9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td.[2017 (2) TMI 526 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH], wherein this Tribunal held that the proviso of para 1 of exemption N/N. 30/2004-CE was substituted on 17.07.2015 vide N/N. 34/2015. Such substitution changed the scope of the condition - the impugned goods were imported by the appellant prior to 17.07.2015, therefore, the decision of M/s Monte Carlo Fashions Ltd. is squarely applicable to the facts of thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s contention is that the impugned goods do not attract CVD as the excise duty on the like articles if manufactured in India is exempted by Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004. Aggrieved from the said orders, the appellant is before us. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the same issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of M/s Monte Carlo Fashions Ltd. and this Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .03.2002, the Honble Supreme Court held that such exemption from the payment of CVD is applicable to the assessee in case of import. The Honble Supreme Court examined the scope of section 3(1) of the Central Excise Tariff Act and held that for quantification of additional duty it has to be imagined that the article imported had been manufactured or produced in India and then to see what without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We find that in the present case un-amended provisos of the notifications are applicable. As such, the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court is to be followed. Accordingly, we allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order. 6. Admittedly, in this case the impugned goods were imported by the appellant prior to 17.07.2015, therefore, the decision of M/s Monte Carlo Fashions Ltd. (Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
