CVD exemption and delayed claim principles: notification benefit cannot be denied solely for non-availment of credit or late assertion.

CVD exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE was treated as available where the relevant notification condition was otherwise satisfied, and the objection that the foreign manufacturer had not availed Cenvat credit was rejected. The text also states that omission to claim the notification benefit when filing the Bills of Entry does not create an estoppel against raising the claim later. On that basis, the exemption was held admissible, the delayed claim was not treated as a bar, and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the importer was entitled to exemption from Countervailing Duty under Notification No. 30/2004-CE despite the objection that the foreign manufacturer had not availed Cenvat credit. (ii) Whether the benefit of the notification could be denied because the claim was not made at the time of filing the Bills of Entry.

Issue (i): Whether the importer was entitled to exemption from Countervailing Duty under Notification No. 30/2004-CE despite the objection that the foreign manufacturer had not availed Cenvat credit.

Analysis: The exemption condition in Notification No. 30/2004-CE was treated as materially identical to the condition considered earlier by the Tribunal and the Supreme Court in the context of Notification No. 6/2002-CE. The controlling principle applied was that denial of CVD exemption cannot rest on the premise that the importer itself could not have availed credit, where the notification condition is satisfied in the relevant legal sense.

Conclusion: The exemption from Countervailing Duty was held admissible and the objection based on non-availment of Cenvat credit was rejected, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the benefit of the notification could be denied because the claim was not made at the time of filing the Bills of Entry.

Analysis: The legal position applied was that failure to claim a notification benefit at the initial stage does not create an estoppel against asserting that benefit later. The objection that the claim was not raised with the Bills of Entry was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The delayed claim did not bar the exemption, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief, as the assessee satisfied the governing exemption principle and was not precluded from claiming the benefit at a later stage.

Ratio Decidendi: A notification benefit cannot be denied merely because the importer could not avail credit itself or because the claim was raised at a later stage; where the notification condition is otherwise satisfied, exemption must be granted.

---