Tribunal denies exemption on imported goods, citing failure to pay Central Excise duty on inputs.

The Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, concluding that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification for the additional duty of Customs (CVD) on imported goods due to the non-fulfillment of the condition of paying Central Excise duty on inputs. All appeals were dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to the benefit of Central Excise Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 as amended by Notification No. 34/2015-CE dated 17.7.2015 for the additional duty of Customs (CVD) on imported goods.

Summary:

Issue 1: Entitlement to the benefit of Central Excise Notification No. 30/2004-CE for CVD on imported goods before 17.7.2015:

The appellants argued that the benefit of the exemption notification 30/2004-CE should be available for the CVD on imported goods, citing the Supreme Court decision in SRF Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, which held that the benefit would be available since it is impossible for a foreign manufacturer to avail CENVAT credit on inputs used in the manufacture of imported goods. The Tribunal agreed that before the amendment on 17.7.2015, the only condition was that no CENVAT credit should have been availed, which is inherently fulfilled for imported goods.

Issue 2: Entitlement to the benefit of Central Excise Notification No. 30/2004-CE for CVD on imported goods after 17.7.2015:

After the amendment on 17.7.2015, an additional condition was introduced that the appropriate amount of Central Excise duty should have been paid on inputs. The appellants contended that since it is impossible to pay Central Excise duty on inputs manufactured outside India, the condition should be deemed fulfilled. However, the Tribunal held that the condition of paying Central Excise duty on inputs cannot be waived for imported goods. The Tribunal emphasized that exemption notifications must be strictly interpreted, and the benefit cannot be extended if the conditions are not met.

Issue 3: Interpretation of the explanation inserted on 21.07.2015:

The appellants argued that the explanation stating that "appropriate duty includes nil duty" should mean that non-payment of duty on inputs manufactured outside India should be considered as payment of duty at NIL rate. The Tribunal rejected this interpretation, stating that the explanation does not nullify the requirement of paying duty on inputs but only clarifies that NIL duty, if applicable, is acceptable.

Issue 4: Precedents and conflicting judgments:

The Tribunal acknowledged conflicting decisions from coordinate benches and the Madras High Court. The Tribunal chose to follow the Madras High Court's decision in Prashray Overseas Pvt. Ltd., which held that the benefit of the exemption notification is not available to imported goods if the conditions are not fulfilled. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned orders and dismissed all appeals.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, concluding that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification 30/2004-CE as amended by Notification No. 34/2015-CE for the CVD on imported goods due to the non-fulfillment of the condition of paying Central Excise duty on inputs. All appeals were dismissed.

---