9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on for stay has been filed by the Appellant Revenue seeking stay of the impugned order. 2.1 As far as the Stay Petition filed by the department is concerned, it is observed that the same is filed in a routine and mechanical manner without any application of mind. The same is of a casual nature. The said Stay Petition, filed by the Department, is dismissed. 3. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue assailing the impugned Order-In-Appeal. 4. The Learned Departmental Representative reiterates the Grounds of Appeal and justifies the impugned Order. 5. We find that the subject appeals relates to applicability of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09/07/2004 as amended by Notification No. 34/2015-CE dated 17/0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity. It is not the case of the appellant that the ratio of the said decisions was not accepted by the department. It is also pertinent to note that, in the present appeal, the appellant has not claimed that any input used in the imported fabric was classifiable under a Tariff Heading not included in the Table annexed to Notification No.30/2004-C.E. In this scenario, the ratio of the decisions cited by the learned counsel will be squarely applicable and consequently the benefit of exemption from payment of countervailing duty should be allowed to the respondent." This decision of the Tribunal was also maintained by the apex court [2015 (317) ELT A 153 (SC)]. 8. We find that that the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturer. Therefore, the sweep of the judgment of SRF Ltd. is not affected. Notification No. 37/2015-CE dated 21.7.15, further relaxes the condition that the nil payment of duty on input would also qualify as payment of duty. Here again too these amendments do not bring about any change to the implication and the meaning as flows out of the apex court's orders. 12. The Commissioner (Appeal) has considered the judgement of SRF Ltd. and the notification No. 34/2015-CE and 37/2015-CE as well as sweep of the judgement of SRF Ltd. vis-a-vis amendments and dealt with the applicability of the amendments in paragraphs 3-9 of the order passed by him. 13. We are also informed that the Tribunal had earlier dismissed several appeals of the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J.K Synthetics [2000 (120) ELT 54 (SC)] Honb'le Court considering the above cases have held that the rate of duty would be only that which an Indian Manufacturer would pay under the Excise Act on a like article. Therefore, the importer would be entitled to payment of concessional/reduced or NIL rate of Countervailing Duty, taking into account notification as issued providing exemption/remission of excise duty for a like article if produced/manufactured in India. 16. The Commr. (Appeals) inter alia has also referred in his order to the aforementioned decisions of the apex court in the SRF Ltd. case as well as that of AIDEK Tourism Pvt. Ltd., in this regard and to hold as under:- "I observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
