2025 (12) TMI 461 - AT - Customs

Exemption From Additional Customs Duty on Raw Silk Upheld, Section 3 Fiction Bars Enhancement Despite Amended Notifications

Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata Versus M/s. Motisons International

CESTAT Kolkata upheld the orders granting exemption from additional customs duty on imported raw silk fabric under the applicable exemption notifications. ... Imposition of additional customs duty on import of Raw Silk fabric - applicability of N/N. 30/2004-CE dated 09/07/2004 as amended by N/N. 34/2015-CE dated 17/07/2015 and N/N. 37/2015-CE dated 21/07/2015 - HELD THAT:- The amendment made vide N/N. 34/2015-CE dated 17/7/15 provides a condition qua payment of duty on inputs and non-availment of Cenvat Credit by the manufacturer. Therefore, the sweep of the judgment of SRF Ltd. [2015 (4) TMI 561 - SUPREME COURT] is not affected. Notification No. 37/2015CE dated 21.7.15, further relaxes the condition that the nil payment of duty on input would also qualify as payment of duty. Here again too these amendments do not bring about any change to the implication and the meaning as flows out of the apex court’s orders. The Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of AIDEK Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (3) TMI 690 - SUPREME COURT], has held that for the purpose of levy of duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, actual production or manufacture of a like article in India is not necessary. It is to be imagined that article imported has been manufactured or produced in India and it need to be seen what amount of excise duty was leviable thereon. Honb'le Supreme Court held that the importer is to be treated as a manufacturer of the goods and thereafter the amount of Excise duty/Additional Duty that is required to be paid is to be determined. There are no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and accordingly, the same is sustained - appeal of Revenue dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Applicability of exemption from additional customs duty (CVD) under Notification No. 30/2004-CE, as amended by Notifications No. 34/2015-CE and 37/2015-CE, to imports of raw silk fabric. 1.2 Effect of the judgments of the Supreme Court (including SRF Ltd. and AIDEK Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd.) and subsequent High Court and Tribunal decisions on the levy of CVD on such imports. 1.3 Whether the post-2015 amendments to Notification No. 30/2004-CE (by Notifications No. 34/2015-CE and 37/2015-CE) alter the legal position regarding exemption of imported goods where conditions attached to the notification cannot, in law or in fact, be fulfilled by the importer. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Applicability of exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE (as amended) to imported raw silk fabric and levy of CVD (a) Legal framework (as discussed) 2.1 The dispute turns on the interpretation and application of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 granting exemption from excise duty, as amended by Notification No. 34/2015-CE dated 17.07.2015 and Notification No. 37/2015-CE dated 21.07.2015, read with Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act concerning additional duty of customs (CVD). 2.2 The Court notes that Notification No. 34/2015-CE introduced a condition relating to payment of duty on inputs and non-availment of CENVAT credit by the manufacturer, and Notification No. 37/2015-CE clarified/relaxed that nil payment of duty on inputs would also qualify as 'payment of duty'. (b) Interpretation and reasoning 2.3 The imports in question were self-assessed by the importer at NIL CVD on the basis that the goods were exempt from excise duty under Notification No. 30/2004-CE as amended by Notifications No. 34/2015-CE and 37/2015-CE. 2.4 The Tribunal relies on the Supreme Court's decision in SRF Ltd., wherein it was held that conditions in an exemption notification which imported goods are inherently incapable of meeting cannot be imposed on the importer, with the result that such conditions are treated as deemed satisfied for purposes of exemption from additional duty of customs. 2.5 The Tribunal refers to prior decisions where it was held that if the inputs contained in the imported commodity are not chargeable to duty of excise in India, there is no question of an Indian manufacturer availing CENVAT credit and consequently no basis for levy of CVD on the imported commodity. The Revenue did not contend that any input used in the imported fabric fell outside the tariff headings covered by the table to Notification No. 30/2004-CE. 2.6 The Tribunal notes a consistent line of decisions, including earlier Tribunal decisions dismissing Revenue appeals on the same issue, which have attained finality and been affirmed by the Supreme Court, thereby settling the matter in favour of the assessee. (c) Conclusions 2.7 The importer is entitled to exemption from levy of additional customs duty (CVD) on the imported raw silk fabric under Notification No. 30/2004-CE as amended, treating the conditions which cannot be complied with by the importer as deemed satisfied in line with SRF Ltd. 2.8 The self-assessment at NIL CVD on the imported goods is in accordance with law, and the benefit of CVD exemption is to be extended to the importer. Issue 2: Effect of Supreme Court and other judicial precedents, and of 2015 amendments to Notification No. 30/2004-CE, on the levy of CVD (a) Legal framework (as discussed) 2.9 The Tribunal discusses the Supreme Court's decisions in SRF Ltd., AIDEK Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd., and the Constitution Bench decision in Thermax Pvt. Ltd., as well as subsequent Supreme Court decisions including Motiram Tolaram, Lohia Sheet Products, Malwa Industries Ltd., and J.K. Synthetics, all interpreting Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act and the nature of CVD. 2.10 The Tribunal considers the Madras High Court judgment in HLG Trading Co., which dealt with Notification No. 30/2004-CE and the vires of its amendments, and notes that this view was later overruled by the Supreme Court in an appeal arising from Prashray Overseas Pvt. Ltd., thereby restoring the Tribunal's earlier position. (b) Interpretation and reasoning 2.11 The Tribunal observes that in appeals filed by the Revenue on the subject issue before the Supreme Court, the appeals were only admitted without grant of stay or issuance of notice, and there was no contrary pronouncement altering the legal position established in SRF Ltd. and related cases. 2.12 It is held that there is no change in the purport and scope of Notification No. 30/2004-CE or in the ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment in SRF Ltd. by reason of the 2015 amendments via Notifications No. 34/2015-CE and 37/2015-CE; the Supreme Court subsequently reaffirmed the SRF Ltd. judgment even after these amendments. 2.13 The Tribunal notes that Notification No. 34/2015-CE introduces a condition regarding payment of duty on inputs and non-availment of CENVAT, and Notification No. 37/2015-CE clarifies that nil duty payment on inputs qualifies as duty payment, but concludes that these amendments do not in any manner restrict or curtail the sweep of the SRF Ltd. decision. 2.14 Relying on AIDEK Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd. and the earlier Constitution Bench decision in Thermax Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal emphasises that for the purposes of levy under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, actual manufacture of a like article in India is not required; it is to be deemed that the imported article is manufactured in India, and the rate and extent of excise duty that would apply to a domestic manufacturer of a like article, including any exemptions, must be applied to determine CVD. 2.15 The Supreme Court's consistent view, as recapitulated by the Tribunal, is that the rate of CVD can only be that which an Indian manufacturer of a like article would pay under the Central Excise Act, including entitlement to any concessional, reduced, or NIL rate of duty under applicable exemption notifications. 2.16 The Commissioner (Appeals), whose order is under challenge by the Revenue, had correctly applied the SRF Ltd. and AIDEK Tourism line of authorities, holding that the amended Notifications No. 34/2015-CE and 37/2015-CE do not negate the principle that conditions impossible of compliance for importers cannot be enforced against them, and that such conditions stand deemed satisfied. (c) Conclusions 2.17 The legal position emerging from SRF Ltd., AIDEK Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd., Thermax Pvt. Ltd., and subsequent Supreme Court decisions remains fully applicable after the 2015 amendments to Notification No. 30/2004-CE. 2.18 Importers are to be treated as deemed manufacturers for purposes of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act and are entitled to the same exemptions and concessional rates of excise duty (including NIL rate) as would apply to an Indian manufacturer of a like article under Notification No. 30/2004-CE as amended. 2.19 The 2015 amendments to Notification No. 30/2004-CE (by Notifications No. 34/2015-CE and 37/2015-CE) do not affect the entitlement of importers to exemption from CVD where the conditions imposed by the notification are incapable of being fulfilled by importers, and such conditions cannot be thrust upon them. 2.20 The Tribunal finds no reason to interfere with the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) granting the benefit of CVD exemption; the Revenue's appeals are dismissed.