Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the importer was entitled to exemption from countervailing duty under Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09/07/2004 despite the condition regarding non-availment of Cenvat credit by the manufacturer.
Analysis: The exemption notification in dispute contained a condition identical to the one considered by the Supreme Court in the earlier decision concerning Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 01/03/2002. The governing principle applied was that where the Supreme Court has interpreted an identically worded condition and held that the non-availment requirement cannot be used to deny the benefit to an importer when Cenvat credit was not available to it in the first place, the same construction must govern the later notification. The earlier denial of exemption on the ground that the importer could not satisfy the manufacturer-specific condition was therefore not sustainable.
Conclusion: The importer was held entitled to exemption from payment of countervailing duty under Notification No. 30/2004-CE, and the denial of benefit was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: An identically worded exemption condition must be applied consistently with the Supreme Court's interpretation, and a manufacturer-based non-availment of Cenvat credit condition cannot defeat an importer's claim where credit was not admissible to the importer.