TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 1415
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntry No. Date 1 9601268 08.05.2017 2 9599422 08.05.2017 3 9687517 15.05.2017 4 9687520 15.05.2017 5 9502118 29.04.2017 6 9296518 13.04.2017 7 9687468 15.05.2017 8 9599497 08.05.2017 9 9917211 01.06.2017 10 9797546 02.05.2017 11 2013462 08.06.2017 12 9916512 01.06.2017 13 9961687 05.06.2017 14 9797547 23.05.2017 2. On examination, the goods were found as per bill of entry. Since the importer had filed the bills of entry under the self assessment scheme and at the time of assessment neither sought benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-CE, therefore, the bills of entry were assessed finally without extending the ben....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dit of such excise duty or additional duty of customs on inputs has been taken by the manufacturer of such goods (and not the buyer of such goods), under the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004". Further, vide amendment under Notification No. 37/2015 dated 21.07.2015 an Explanation was inserted under the above proviso. This Explanation reads as follows:- "Explanation:- For the purposes of this Notification, appropriate duty or appropriate additional duty includes nil duty or concessional duty, whether or not read with any relevant exemption Notification for the time being in force." 5. It was further observed that appropriate duty or appropriate additional duty in the said notifications includes Nil duty. Further obse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) held in paragraph 8 and 9 as follows. "8. Following the judgment of AIDEK Tourism Pvt.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew 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 that only ground under which Revenue filed this appeal is that department has filed a review pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ported goods. However, appellants have claimed exemption benefit in light of decision in the case of SRF Ltd., (supra). 8.2 In view of the above said two amendments in the Notification No. 30/2004-C.Ex. dated 09.07.2004, the goods imported under Bills of Entry filed after amendments have to comply conditions to the amended notification and in respect of such goods, ratio of judgment in the case of SRF Ltd., (supra) would not be applicable. As the impugned Bills of Entry have been filed after the two amendments, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned orders has rightly rejected the appeals holding that the ratio of SRF Ltd., (supra) is inapplicable in the case and upheld the orders-in-original rejecting benefit of the notification. 8.3 A....