9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 890X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 37 of 2015 further relaxes the condition that the nil payment of duty on input would also qualify as payment of duty. Tribunal dismissed several appeals of the Revenue on 27.11.2017 and 21.03.2018 against the respondent by following the previous orders of the Tribunal - No appeal has been preferred against the above two orders and limitation period has expired. The orders have attained finality. In view of dismissal of the review petition of the department by Apex Court in SRF LTD., appeals filed by the department are not sustainable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - MA (COD)-76295, 76297, 76299, 76303, 76305/2017 And SP Nos. 76296, 76298, 76300, 76304, 76306/2017 And Appeal Nos. C/77057-77059 & 77061-77062/2017 - M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the appeal and no stay was granted. Order for issue of notice was also not made. 6. Ld. Counsel also submits that the Judgement of Madras High Court in HLG Trading Co. as reported in 331 ELT Page 561 (Madras) was delivered on 30.10.2015 when Review application of SRF was pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court. It dealt with Notification No. 30/2004 and vires of amendments. There is no discussion as to how amendments changed the scope of the notification No. 30/2004 or the judgment of SRF Ltd. There is no finding that notification No. 34 of 2015 or 37 of 2015 changed the course of notification no. 30 /2004 in the judgment. He further submits that on the contrary this judgement of Hon ble Madras High Court was overruled by Hon ble S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seas laying same ratio expressly stands overruled. 8. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 9. We find that the amendment made by notification No. 34 of 2015 provides a condition qua payment of duty on inputs and non-availment of credit in manufacturing. Therefore, the sweep of the judgment of SRF Ltd. is not affected. The Notification No. 37 of 2015 further relaxes the condition that the nil payment of duty on input would also qualify as payment of duty. 10. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the judgement of SRF Ltd. and the notification No. 34 of 2015 and 37 of 2015 as well as sweep of the judgement of SRF Ltd. vis-a-vis amendments and dealt with the applicability of the amendments in the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ble Apex Court. Hon ble CESTAT in its recent final orders bearing No. FO/A/75702-75704/2016 dated 02.08.2016 involving identical issue in appellant s own case also affirmed that the benefit of CVD exemption is to be extended to importer also in this case CESTAT has held as under: 1. These Stay applications and Appeal have been filed by the Revenue against OIA dated 29.10.2015 and 14.01.2016. 2. Sri S. K. Naskar, A.C. (AR) argued that First Appellate Authority has allowed the appeals by relying upon order of Hon ble Apex Court in SRF Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (2015 (318) ELT. 607 (S.C.)]. That department has filed a review application in Hon ble Supreme Court against the said order, which is pending. 3. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
