SAD exemption and Modvat declaration are independent; filing both did not amount to impermissible double benefit.

The exemption from Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 56/98-Cus was available because the declaration filed for that relief was distinct from the declaration under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The former related to exemption from SAD on imported goods, while the latter concerned CVD and the enabling of Modvat credit. As the two declarations served different statutory purposes and operated independently, the filing of both did not, by itself, establish impermissible double benefit. The allegation of dual advantage was therefore rejected and the SAD exemption was treated as correctly claimed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to exemption from Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 56/98-Cus dated 13/06/98 despite filing a declaration for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, or whether this amounted to availing double benefits.

Analysis: The declaration required for exemption under the notification was filed for claiming relief from 4% SAD on imported goods, while the declaration under Rule 57A related to CVD and was intended to enable passing of Modvat credit. The two declarations served different purposes and operated independently. No material was shown to establish that the appellant had derived any impermissible double benefit.

Conclusion: The exemption from SAD was correctly claimed and the allegation of double benefits was rejected.

---