9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 09.07.2004 on polyester knitted fabrics. Valuation - On the basis of DRI alert whether the value of imported goods can be enhanced or not? - Held that: - reliance placed in the appellant own case case Artex Textile Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C., Delhi-IV [2017 (9) TMI 1166 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH], where it was held that The value of imported goods in question cannot be enhanced on the basis of DRI alert and the basis of assessed bill of entry - the value of imported goods cannot be enhanced on the basis of DRI alert. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/59900-59907/2013 & C/50126/2014 - A/61791-61799/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 11-9-2017 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the manufacturer having not availed the cenvat credit. Its stand held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that CESTAT denied the exemption from CVD only on the ground that condition of non-availment of Cenvat credit was not fulfilled in as much as cenvat credit was not admissible to the importer and the question of fulfilling of the said condition does not arise. By taking note of the precedent decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court, the Hon ble Apex Court set aside the impugned orders of the Tribunal and held that the importers were entitled to exemption from payment of CVD in terms of Notification No.6/2002-CE. In as much as the dispute in the present appeal is in respect of the identical conditions, as contained in the subsequent Notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded by the Tribunal in the same appellant's case vide the earlier order being Final Order No.61168-61181/2017 dated 19/06/2017. In fact, it is seen that in the present impugned order reliance stands placed on her earlier Order-in-Appeal No.77-86/Cus/Appl/DLH-IV/2012 dated 02/08/2012. The said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which stands referred by her in the present impugned order was the subject matter of earlier appeal filed by the same appellants before this Tribunal and the same was set aside by this Tribunal vide Final Order dated 19.06.2017. 3. In view of the above, we find no merit in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). By following the earlier decision of this Tribunal in the same appellant s case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
