TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether imported marble slabs were liable to countervailing duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, when the process of cutting and polishing marble blocks did not amount to manufacture. (ii) Whether the credit taken on such imports was hit by Rule 3(6)(i)(c) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and recoverable.
Issue (i): Whether imported marble slabs were liable to countervailing duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, when the process of cutting and polishing marble blocks did not amount to manufacture.
Analysis: The levy of additional customs duty under Section 3 is linked to the excise duty that would be leviable if the imported article were manufactured in India. Since the process of cutting and polishing marble blocks into slabs had already been held not to amount to manufacture, no excise duty could be notionally attracted on that product. In the absence of a manufactured like article, countervailing duty could not be sustained merely because the imported goods were classifiable under a tariff heading.
Conclusion: The imported marble slabs were not liable to countervailing duty, and the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the credit taken on such imports was hit by Rule 3(6)(i)(c) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and recoverable.
Analysis: Once no countervailing duty was lawfully leviable on the imported marble slabs, the premise for restricting credit under Rule 3(6)(i)(c) disappeared. The credit taken against the duty paid on import was treated as part of a revenue-neutral sequence, and the demand for recovery could not stand on the footing that the inputs fell within the restricted tariff classification. The asserted restriction therefore did not apply to the facts found.
Conclusion: The credit demand and recovery were unsustainable, and the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The orders below were set aside and both appeals were allowed because the imported marble slabs did not attract countervailing duty, and the related credit demand based on the alleged restriction was also unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the underlying process does not amount to manufacture, additional customs duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 cannot be levied on the imported article, and a credit restriction premised on such non-leviable duty cannot be enforced.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
