9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 2.2 The adjudicating authority held that as the appellant has not challenged the assessment of Bills of Entry, which were self-assessed, therefore, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ITC Limited Vs. CCEx., Kolkata IV reported in 2019 (368) ELT 216 (SC), the benefit of exemption Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004, is not admissible to the importer-appellant. 2.3 The said order was challenged before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who uphold the order passed by the adjudicating authority upholding that the amendment of Bills of Entry to claim the benefit of the exemption Notification could not be claimed by the appellant for non-availability of exemption Notification in the respondent's EDI system. Therefore, he rejected the appeal. 2.4 Against the order, the appellant is before us. 3. The ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that the adjudicating authority heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ITC Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in case, any person is aggrieved by any order, which would include the self- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en to the appellant only because of the reason that they have not challenged the assessments of Bills of Entry. 8. Further, we find that during the course of arguments, the ld. A.R. for the Revenue, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Prashray Overseas Private Limited (supra), to say that the benefit of Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004, is not available to the appellant. The said issue has been examined and the Board has clarified the situation vide Circular No.1005/12/2015-CX dated 21.07.2015. As per the said Circular, the appellant was entitled the benefit of exemption Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 prior to 17th July,2015. Further, the issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of Artex Textile Private Limited (supra), wherein this Tribunal observed as under : "4.8 Further as regard the second dispute involved in the present appeals that whether appellant are eligible for exemption Notification under Notification No. 30/2004-CE dtd. 09.07.2004 which provide exemption form Countervailing Duty (CVD), we find that identical issue has been decided by this tribunal in the appellant's own matter of M/s Sedna Imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will also be available to the importers of such final products for the purposes of CVD on the ground that the importer was not availing the credit of duty on inputs or capital goods. 2. The implication of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment was that all such final products when imported by manufacturer importer would have attracted concessional excise duty as CVD, while the domestic manufacturer of such final products had to forgo input tax credit to be eligible for such concessional rate. This would put the domestic manufacturers at a disadvantage vis-a-vis imports and would adversely impact the Make in India Policy of the Government. 3. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was examined in CBEC and it was found that there were certain errors apparent on record/interpretational issues and. with the concurrence of the Ld. Attorney General, a Review Petition/Revision Application has been filed against the same. 4. However, keeping in view the adverse implications of the aforesaid judgment on the domestic industry, legal opinion was sought from the Ministry of Law & Justice as to whether pending the aforesaid Review Petition/Revision Application, such conditions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partmental officers. Therefore, the Assessing Officers while assessing the Bill of Entry was duty bound to verify the eligibility of the exemption Notification No. 30/2004-CE and to extend the benefit of the same. However, the Assessing Officer has not given any heed in extending the benefit of the said notification. In this fact, it cannot be expected from the appellant to lodge any protest as they have also paid duty oversightly without claiming such notifications. Therefore, we do not agree with the contention of the Learned Commissioner that since the appellant have not lodged any protest the benefit of notification cannot be given. We further note that it is a settled law in various judgments that the benefit of exemption notification can be claimed at any stage, therefore, even after clearance of goods when the exemption benefit claimed the same should be extended to the assessee. As regard, the other ground of rejection by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant have not satisfied the condition of non taking of Cenvat Credit on inputs/capital goods, the very same issue has been dealt in above referred board circular dated 21.07.2015 by considering as settled legal issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with in detail and decided by this Tribunal Bench in the case of M/s. Prashray Overseas Pvt. Ltd. in the orders reported in 2008 (232) E.L.T. 63 (Tri.-Chen.) and 2009 (235) E.L.T. 300 (Tri.- Chennai) where the issue of grant of CVD exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004 has been discussed and allowed appeals. The LAA has rightly relied on the Tribunal's orders (supra) which is binding on him and allowed the appeals. Merely for the reason Revenue filed appeal before Hon'ble High Court, Madras cannot be a ground to deny the benefit allowed by this Bench as no stay granted by the High Court. Therefore, once the Tribunal has already decided the issue and the decision has not been set aside and there appears to be no error on the part of the LAA relying on this Tribunal's decision. In view of Hon'ble Supreme Court relying in the case of Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.), this Bench decision is binding on the jurisdictional lower authorities and they are bound to follow the said decision. On this account alone, the Revenue's appeals are liable to be rejected." 9. Therefore, following the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
