2005 (6) TMI 329

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to imported inputs inasmuch as it extended the benefit of exemption to goods "manufactured in a factory and used within the factory of production". Ld. SDR has reiterated this position. On the other hand, ld. Consultant for the respondents would rely on the Supreme Court's decision in Thermax Private Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, 1992 (61) E.L.T. 352 (S.C.) to argue that whether the inputs are imported or manufactured in India makes no difference for the above Notification. Ld. Counsel has claimed support from Paragraph 11 of the Supreme Court's judgment, which reads as under :- "11. It will at once be seen that there is nothing in the scheme of the rule which makes it inapplicable to an importer of goods. The assessee here has imp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ure outlined in Chapter X, it would not be correct to deny it to a supplier of such goods on the ground that he is an importer and not a manufacturer. That aspect is provided for by Section 3(1) of C.T. Act which specifically mandates that the CVD will be equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India. In other words, we have to forget that the goods are imported, imagine that the importer had manufactured the goods in India and determine the amount of excise duty that he would have been called upon to pay in that event. Thus, if the person using the goods is entitled to the remission, the importer will be entitled to say that the CVD should only be the amount of concessional duty....