TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 721
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....K. Impex had imported silk fabrics vide 2 Bills of Entry and claimed the benefit of CVD @ 8% under Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004. The original authority vide orders of assessment dated 24.02.2010 and 25.02.2010 denied benefit of Notification No.30/2004-CE on the imported goods. Against such order the respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The order passed by original authority was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the order impugned herein and held that the respondent is eligible for the benefit of notification. Against such order, the department is now before the Tribunal. 3. Ld. A.R Ms. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram appeared for the department. She submitted that respondent is not eligible for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....High Court observed that the benefit of concessional rate of CVD is not eligible if the inputs have not suffered duty. She prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 4. None appeared for the respondent. The matter is taken up for disposal after hearing the Ld. A.R and also perusal of records. 5. The issue to be considered is whether the respondent is eligible for claiming the CVD exemption under Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004. Ld. A.R has stressed that the exemption granted under the notification is conditional in as much as there is a proviso in the notification which reads as under : "Provided that nothing contained in this Notification shall apply to the goods in respect of which credit of duty vide Corrigendum F.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....availed credit under Rule 3 or Rule 11 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, in respect of the capital goods used for the manufacture of these goods. 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. 26....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the assessee herein. In that case, the Court noted that Section 3(1) of the Tariff 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 dated 17.07.2015, the proviso to the original notification was amended and reads as under : "Provided that the said excisable goods are manufactured from inputs, on which, appropriate duty of excise leviable under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act or additional duty of customs under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) has been paid and no credit 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 Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004." 9. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of Prashray Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had analysed the issue after the date of amendment. In para-15, the Hon....