9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Final Order Nos. 50953-50954/2019 - Dated:- 24-7-2019 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Present for the appellant: Shri Abhishek Jaju, Advocate Present for the respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar, DR ORDER Bijay Kumar: 1. The present two appeals are filed against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. CCACUS/D-II/PPG-BBG/2775/2018 dated 26/11/2018 and CCACUS/D-II/PPG-BBG/2770/2018 dated 22/11/2018 by which the order of ld. Adjudicating authority dated 23/11/2017 have been upheld and the appellant s appeals were dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant has imported consignmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Ld. Advocate, on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the issue is decided in favour of the appellant vide decision of the coordinate bench of Kolkata Tribunal vide Final Order No. MO/75078-75087/2019 and FO/A/75172-75176/2019 dated 17/01/2019, wherein it is held that even after the amendment the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-CE the benefit is available to the importer of the goods. Ld. Advocate also submitted written submissions dated 29/04/2019, wherein the similar arguments were pressed. 4. Ld. AR on behalf of the Revenue, however, submits that the benefit of the Notification No. 30/2004 is not available to the appellant, in view of the subsequent amendment carried by Notification Nos. 34/2014 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos. 34/2015 and 37/2015 and the decision was arrived thereafter. The relevant portion of the order is extracted as under; 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made applicable to the imported goods. The importer has satisfied all the conditions of the amended notifications in terms of the view taken by several judicial pronouncements by Hon 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
