2019 (8) TMI 275

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....authority dated 23/11/2017 have been upheld and the appellant's appeals were dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant has imported consignment of non textured polyester lining from China vide Bill of Entry No. 6113751 dated 25/07/2015 in respect of Appeal No. 50492 of 2019 and following Bills of Entry in respect of Appeal No. 50493 of 2019; 7797460/ 13.12.2016, 7707465/ 05.12.2016, 8134024/ 10.01.2017, 8134005/ 10.01.2017, 8134004/ 10.01.2017, 8008851/ 29.12.2016, 8382233/ 31.01.2017, 8579038/ 16.02.2017, 8581857/ 16.02.2017, 8579037/ 16.02.2017 The appellant has claimed the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 19/07/2004 as amended by Notification No. 34/2015-CE dated 17/07/2015. The benefit claimed by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot available to the appellant, in view of the subsequent amendment carried by Notification Nos. 34/2014 and 37/2015. The appellant is not a manufacturing unit, and therefore, the conditions of the Notification cannot be complied by them and, accordingly, the impugned order has decided the issue which is sustainable. Ld. AR on behalf of the appellant also submitted a written submission dated 10/05/2019 which was taken on record and duely considered by us. 5. We have considered the submissions made by ld. Counsel and ld. AR and also perused the appeal records along with submissions made by both the sides. 6. The issue to be decided in this appeal is regarding availability of the Notification No. 30/2004 as amended to the appellant in re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of 2015 and 37 of 2015 as well as sweep of the judgement of SRF Ltd. vis-a-vis amendments and dealt with the applicability of the amendments in the impugned orders. 11. We find that Tribunal dismissed several appeals of the Revenue on 27.11.2017 and 21.03.2018 against the respondent by following the previous orders of the Tribunal. No appeal has been preferred against the above two orders and limitation period has expired. The orders have attained finality. 12. We also find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the order passed by this Tribunal in the case of the respondent in which the benefit of notification No. 30 of 2004, as amended by notification 34 of 2007 and 37 of 2015 were extended to the responde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (2015 (318) ELT. 607 (S.C.)]. That department has filed a review application in Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said order, which is pending. 3. Sri S. K. Mehta (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the respondents argued that Hon'ble Apex Court by an order dated 15.07.2016 has dismissed the Review Petition No. 3441/ 2015 in Civil Appeal No. 1623/2009 filed by Revenue. In the case of M/s SRF Ltd. (Supra) Advocate also relied upon the case law of M/s Chemsilk Commerce Pvt. Ltd. Shri Aditya Sarda Vs. CC (Port), Kolkata (2015) (12) TMI 1000-CESTAT, Kolkata ] under which similar benefit has been extended to the appellant. 4. After hearing both sides and perusing the case records, it is observed....