Exemption notification amendment left imported goods eligible for benefit; prior precedent and finality supported the importer's position.

The amended exemption notifications did not materially curtail the entitlement recognised in SRF Ltd., because Notification No. 34/2015 introduced an input-duty and credit condition without changing the governing principle, and Notification No. 37/2015 further treated nil duty payment on inputs as qualifying payment of duty. On that basis, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly considered the amendments and the binding precedent, and that earlier orders in the importer's own case had already attained finality. The notification benefit therefore continued to apply to the imported goods, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004, as amended by Notification No. 34/2015 and Notification No. 37/2015, was available to the imported goods and whether the impugned order granting such benefit required interference.

Analysis: The amendment made by Notification No. 34/2015 introduced a condition relating to payment of duty on inputs and non-availment of credit in manufacturing, but it did not alter the sweep of the principle applied in SRF Ltd. Notification No. 37/2015 further relaxed the position by treating nil payment of duty on inputs as qualifying payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) had examined the effect of the amendments and the governing precedent, and the Tribunal found that the earlier orders in the respondent's own case had attained finality. On that basis, the benefit of the amended notifications continued to apply to the importer.

Conclusion: The amended notifications did not restrict the benefit claimed by the respondent, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The order under appeal was upheld and the Revenue's appeal was rejected, leaving the respondent entitled to the notification benefit.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment to an exemption notification that does not materially curtail the entitlement recognised by the governing precedent cannot be used to deny the benefit to imported goods where the applicable conditions are otherwise satisfied.

---