2025 (4) TMI 254

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....   2. The Learned Departmental Representative reiterates the Grounds of Appeal and justifies the impugned Order. 3. None appears on behalf of the Respondent. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, we take up the appeals in the absence of the Respondents and with the consent of the Appellant. We find that the subject appeals relates to applicability of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09/07/2004 as amended by Notification No. 34/2015-CE dated 17/07/2015 and Notification No. 37/2015-CE dated 21/07/2015 regarding imposition of additional customs duty on import of Raw Silk fabric. We further find that the issue is no more res integra and has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent and against the Revenue.&n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....this would also enable a level playing field with the domestic manufacturers, who have been permitted to either take benefit of nil CVD as per this Notification, or take credit for CENVAT on the CVD paid by them." 6. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue and perused the appeal papers filed. 7. We find that that the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on the subject issue. The Apex Court after considering all the relevant judgments (including HLG Trading Vs. Union of India decided on 30.10.2015 by Madras High Court) only admitted the appeal and no stay was granted. Order for issue of notice was also not made. 8. We note that the judgement of Hon'ble Madras High Court in HLG T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Application which was pending at that time. The conclusion in the judgment that importer has to fulfil conditions of non availment of credit is contra SRF Ltd.  11. The amendment made by notification No. 34/2015-CE dated 17/7/15 provides a condition qua payment of duty on inputs and nonavailment of Cenvat Credit by the manufacturer. Therefore, the sweep of the judgment of SRF Ltd. is not affected. Notification No. 37/2015-CE dated 21.7.15, further relaxes the condition that the nil payment of duty on input would also qualify as payment of duty. Here again too these amendments do not bring about any change to the implication and the meaning as flows out of the apex court's orders. 12. The Commissioner (Appeal) has considered the j....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....am Vs Union of India, CCE vs J.K Synthetics, (2000) 10 SCC 393 (ii) Lohia Sheet products Vs Commr of Customs (2008) 11 SCC 510 and (iii) Collector of Customs (Preventive) Vs Malwa Industries Ltd (2009) 12 SCC 735.  Honb'le Court considering the above cases have held that the rate of duty would be only that which an Indian Manufacturer would pay under the Excise Act on a like Article. Therefore, the importer would be entitled to payment of concessional/reduced or NIL rate of Countervailing duty if any notification is issued providing exemption/remission of excise duty for a like article if produced/manufactured in India. 16. The Commr. (Appeals) inter alia has also referred in his order to the  aforement....