TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 514
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duty as per the rates under Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Prior to 1.3.2015, the appellants were required to pay the duty at the rate of 6% of CVD by virtue of S.No. 263A(i) of Notification No. 12/2012 CE dated 17.3.2012 and from 1.3.2015 onwards at the rate of 12.5% rate of CVD. The Notification No. 12/2012 also provided a concessional rate of CVD of 1% on import of mobile phones classified under CTI 8517 subject to the condition 16 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE, wherein the assessee should not have taken credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of the inputs and capital goods used in the manufacture of these goods. The Revenue is of the view that appellants have not satisfied the said condition on import ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Apex Court in the case of SRF Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "6. In the present case, admitted position is that no such Cenvat credit is availed by the appellant. However, the reason for denying the benefit of the aforesaid Notification is that in the case of the appellant, no such credit is admissible under the Cenvat Rules. On this basis, the CEGAT has come to the conclusion that when the credit under the Cenvat Rules is not admissible to the appellant, question of fulfilling the aforesaid condition does not arise. In holding so, it followed the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ashok Traders v. Union of India [1987 (32) E.L.T. 262], wherein the Bombay High Court had held that it is imposs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ariff Act provides for levy of an additional duty. The duty is, in other words, in addition to the Customs duty leviable under Section 12 of the Customs Act read with Section 2 of the Tariff Act. The explanation to Section 3 has two limbs. The first limb clarifies that the duty chargeable under Section 3(1) would be the Excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India. The condition precedent for levy of additional duty thus contemplated by the explanation deals with the situation where a like article is not so produced or manufactured . The use of the word so implies that the production or manufacture referred to in the second limb is relatable to the use of that expression in the first limb wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also took note of and held that the decisions in Collector of Central Excise v. Flock (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Prevention) (supra) would not apply since those were cases where "there is no assessment order on dispute/contest, like as is in the present case." It was held in Aman Medical Products Limited (supra) that the Assessee in was entitled to maintain the refund claim notwithstanding that there was no appeal filed against the assessed B/Es. 13. As far as the present case is concerned, there was indeed no assessment order as such passed by the customs authorities. Although under Section 2 (ii) of the Act, the word 'assessment' includes a self-assessment, the clearanc....