TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 581
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2% and 1% and additional duty at 1%. 3. On the date of clearance, 09.04.2012, there were two Notifications prevailing, Notification 12/2012 (CE) dated 17.03.2012 that imposed duty at an effective rate of 1% upon condition that no credit had been availed under Rule 3 or Rule 13 of the CENVAT Rules 2004 in respect of inputs or inputs services used in the manufacture of the goods and Notification 2/2011 as amended by Notification 23/2012 which imposed a duty of 6% on branded as well as unbranded jewellery. 4. In the present case, the assessment on the basis of bill of entry computes the liability of duty at the rate of 6% arriving at the duty payable of an amount of Rs. 21,41,391/-. The assessee, assailing the assessment in appeal, sought to avail the benefit of Notification 12/2012 which prescribed duty at the rate of 1%. In the present case, the assessee being an importer had not availed of credit and consequently not passed on the same and was thus, according to it, eligible for the benefit of Notification 12/2012. 5. Before the first Appellate Authority, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), the assessee contended that in the light of two prevailing Notifications prescribing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....article imported has been manufactured or produced in India and to consequently quantify the amount of excise duty leviable thereon. 10. Applying the aforesaid decisions to the present case, the CESTAT allowed the assessee s appeal accepting the claim of the assessee in terms of Notification 12/2012 and granting the benefit of concessional rate of 1% set out thereunder. The only contention of the Revenue before the CESTAT was to the effect that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of SRF (cited supra) was pending in review. It is against the aforesaid order of the CESTAT dated 15.10.2015 that the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Revenue. 11. We have heard the submissions of Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Commissioner of Customs and Mr.N.Prasad for Mr.N.Inbarajan learned Counsel appearing for the respondent assessee. 12. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr.Prasad, as to the maintainability of the present appeal. The learned counsel would argue that this Court does not possess the requisite statutory jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he purposes of assessment is used in section 129 D of the Customs Act which additionally contains an Explanation providing a definition of the phrases utilized in that provision. The Explanation reads as follows: '(5) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any decision or order in which the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment of any duty is in issue or is one of the points in issue. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, the determination of a rate of duty in relation to any goods or valuation of any goods or valuation of any goods for the purposes of assessment of duty includes the determination of a question- (a) Relating to the rate of duty for the time being in force, whether under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), or under any other Central Act providing for the levy and collection of any duty of customs, in relation to any goods on or after the 28th day of February, 1986; or (b) relating to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment of any duty in cases where the assessment is made on or after the 28th day of February, 1986; or (c) whether an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 ELT 191) rejected the contention of the assessee challenging maintainability of the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground that the rate of duty was not in dispute. The facts of that case are distinguishable from the present one and the conclusion of the Court turned on the factual finding of the Court therein that the rate of duty in that case was not in dispute. (iii) The Gujarat High Court in Anil Products Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central excise, Ahmedabad 2014 (307) ELT 692 relates to a case where the classification of goods was in dispute and hence the appeal was held to be not maintainable. It is nobody's case here that the dispute relates to classification. The question is only whether the rate of duty applicable to the transaction would be 1% or 6%. As such this decision thus does not advance the case of the Revenue. (iv) The following paragraph was relied upon in Ruchi Soya Industries Vs. Union of India 2014(307) ELT 852 decided by the Gujarat High Court: '11.2 . It is required to be noted that as such there is no dispute that if total carotenoid oil (as beta carotene) is found to be in the range of 500-2500 mg/kg in the very Palm Oil it attracts concessiona....