9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee cannot be estopped from claiming such benefit at a later stage - the appellant is entitled for the benefit of payment of CVD in terms of Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 on polyester knitted fabrics - decided in favor of appellant. Valuation of imported goods - On the basis of DRI alert whether the value of imported goods can be enhanced or not? - Held that: - the said issue came in the appellant’s own case for the earlier period 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 - decided in favor of appellant. Appeal allowed - dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court of India in a recent decision in the case of SRF Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai reported as 2015 (318) ELT 607 (S.C) has considered identically worded Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 01/03/2002 which has the identical clause 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 impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant s own case for the earlier period vide Final Order No.A/61302-61322/2017 dated 10.07.2017 wherein this Tribunal observed as under: 2. We find that in respect of earlier imports, the issue stands decided 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 Fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
