TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1035
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r for the Revenue, we have considered the rival contentions and we have given conscious consideration to the documents as well as judicial precedents relied upon by both the sides. 3. The only question that arises for our consideration is whether the appellant's claim for benefit of Nil CVD in terms of Notification No.30/2004-CE is valid. 4. The appellant has mainly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SRF Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - 2015 (318) ELT 607 (SC) which decision has been followed by CESTAT also. He would draw our attention to paragraph 7 of the said decision which reads as under : "7. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid reasoning is no longer good law after the judgment of this Court in 'Thermax Private Limited v. Collector of Customs (Bombay), New Customs House' [1992 (4) SCC 440 = 1992 (61) E.L.T. 352 (S.C.)] which was affirmed by the Constitution Bench in the case of 'Hyderabad Industries Limited v. Union of India' [1999 (5) SCC 15 = 1999 (108) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)]. In a recent judgment pronounced by this very Bench in the case of 'AIDEK Tourism Services Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi' [Civil ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er (Appeals) and therefore the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) is manifestly illegal. Further, he has relied on following orders : i. Final Order No. 40280 of 2019 dated 17.1.2019 in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Air), Chennai Vs. Sony India Pvt.Ltd. ii. Final Order No. 50953 - 50954 of 2019 dated 24.7.2019 of CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of Artex Textile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Patparganj and Ors. iii. Final Order No. 51850 of 2019 dated 21.10.2019 of CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of Artex Textile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Patparganj and Ors. iv. Proceedings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court admitting the case of M/s. HLG Trading by grant of leave vide Proceedings dated 11.3.2019. v. Final Order No. A/10106 - 10190 of 2022 dated 18.2.2022 of CESTAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Sedna Impex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mundra. vi. Final Order No. A/11267 - 11270 of 2023 dated 15.6.2023 of CESTAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Kunj Bihari Textiles Vs.CCE, Mundra. vii. Final Order No. 50356 -50372 of 2023 dated 21.3.2022 passed by CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of Soir International and Ors. Vs. ACC, Patparganj. viii. Proceedings of the H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igh Court in the case of HLG Trading Vs Union of India (supra) has been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has entertained the same by granting leave and converted the S.L.P as Civil Appeal. It is thus his submission that, the decision in HLG Trading (supra) is in jeopardy and cannot be the last word on the subject. He would also rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. - 2004 (164) ELT 375 (SC) to contend that once the leave is granted, the order of lower court / Tribunal is in jeopardy and therefore under judicial scrutiny and not free from doubt. 8. We find that in the case of HLG Trading and connected appeals, this very Bench had an occasion to consider more or less similar issue vide Final Order Nos.40902-40915 dated 12.10.2023 wherein it has been held as under : "7.1 At the outset, given the undisputed facts, we do not find any reasons at all to interfere with the impugned Orders-in-Appeal since we find that the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature has analysed the law and the change brought about by subsequent Notification Nos. 34/2015 and 37/2015 ibid. has been followed. The Hon'b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... result is that a domestic manufacturer pays an extra amount of Rs. 100/-, in the example given above, while the importer does not pay anything. Neither Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, nor Article III of GATT required that an importer should be placed in a more advantageous position than the domestic manufacturer. The only requirement under GATT and even under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act is that the importer should not be put to a disadvantageous position than the domestic manufacturer. But what the petitioners want is to place the importer in an advantageous position. This is not permissible. 83. As we have indicated earlier, a challenge to a condition prescribed in an exemption notification can be tested only on very limited parameters. None of the parameters is satisfied in this case. The exemption notifications dated 17-7-2015 and 21-7-2015 are issued in exercise of the power conferred by Section 5A. Section 5A(1) itself empowers the Central Government to grant exemption either absolutely or subject to such conditions as they may stipulate. If the Central Government has the power to grant exemption subject to certain conditions, they have the power even to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....benefit of the Notification will not be available to any of the importers, since he could have never paid any duty of excise on the inputs used in their manufacture by the foreign manufacturer. This proposition is based upon the premise that the object of such Notifications is only to grant exemption to those final products, on which, some duty has been paid (in India) at the stage of inputs. In other words, Notifications of this nature, are not merely conditional, but also restrictive in nature, as they confer benefit not upon all manufacturers of exempted goods, even if they are domestic manufacturers, but only upon those, who use inputs that had suffered duty. (iii) In cases where the exemption Notification stipulates only one condition namely that no Cenvat credit ought to have been availed on the inputs, the benefit of the Notification will be available only to those, who satisfy two conditions namely that the inputs used by them suffered a duty and that they did not seek Cenvat credit. Since an importer can never satisfy the first condition, the second condition becomes inapplicable to him and he cannot be heard to contend that the inapplicability of the condition by itself....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the judgment, decree or order under challenge." 12.2 From Sl. No. (4) (supra), it is clear that upon granting of leave to appeal, though the finality of the judgement, decree or order appealed against is put in jeopardy, it continues to be binding and effective between the parties unless it is a nullity or unless the court may pass a specific order staying or suspending the operation or execution of the judgement, decree or order under challenge. 12.3 Further, it is held at paragraph 39 as under: - "39. We have catalogued and dealt with all the available decisions of this Court brought to our notice on the point at issue. It is clear that as amongst the several twoJudges Bench decisions there is a conflict of opinion and needs to be set at rest. The source of power conferring binding efficacy on decisions of this Court is not uniform in all such decisions. Reference is found having been made to (i) Article 141 of the constitution, (ii) doctrine of merger, (iii) res judicata, and (iv) Rule of discipline flowing from this Court being the highest court of the land." 13. The doctrine of merger was once again considered in the case of West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. (supra) and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....law prescribes certain conditions, then it is incumbent upon such claimant to satisfy the conditions prescribed thereunder. He cannot be still heard to stake a claim for the benefit under an effaced Notification which is clearly not in vogue as on the date of import / filing of billsof-entry. To us, therefore, the change in law as brought about in the amended Notifications, has clearly been appreciated by the Hon'ble High Court in its judgement in the assessees' own cases (supra), which has rightly been followed by the Ld. first appellate authority. 16.2 The prayer of the appellants even in the grounds-ofappeal reveal clearly that they are seeking the benefit of an erstwhile Notification which stood duly effaced, but however, there is no claim made as to satisfying the conditions prescribed under the amended Notification Nos. 34/2015 and 37/2015 ibid. which were applicable. By the amending Notification No. 34/2015-C.E. dated 17.07.2015, the condition that was prescribed was as to the non-availment of CENVAT Credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of goods. The admitted position is that the importers i.e., the assessees before us, were not the manufacturers since the impugned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....end the law, and that the Court cannot be called upon, to discard the cardinal rule of interpretation for the purpose of mitigating such hardship. If the language of an Act is sufficiently clear, the Court has to give effect to it, however, inequitable or unjust the result may be. The words, 'dura lex sed lex' which mean "the law is hard but it is the law." may be used to sum up the situation. Therefore, even if a statutory provision causes hardship to some people, it is not for the Court to amend the law. A legal enactment must be interpreted in its plain and literal sense, as that is the first principle of interpretation. 20. In Mysore State Electricity Board v. Bangalore Woolen, Cotton & Silk Mills Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1128 a Constitution Bench of this Court held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute. 21. In Martin Burn Ltd. v. The Corporation of Calcutta, AIR 1966 SC 529, this Court, while dealing with the same issue observed as under:- "A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. A s....