2025 (6) TMI 1276

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der. 3. The Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent assessee, submits that the subject appeal 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 concerning applicability of additional customs duty upon import of mulberry silk fabrics without dyed & without printed. He further submits that the issue is no more res integra and has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the Respondent and against the Revenue. 4. The subject imports were self assessed by the appellant claiming NIL CVD for the imported goods as the said goods were exempt from payment of excise duty vide Notification 30/04-CE....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AT on the CVD paid by them.' 6. We have heard the two sides 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 that of 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 Trading Co. 2016 (331) ELT 561 (Madras) was delivered on 30.10.2015 when Review application of SRF was pending before the Supreme Court. It dealt with Notification No. 30/2004-CE and vires of amendments. We are of the view t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gment 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 from the apex court's orders. 12. The Commissioner (Appeal) has considered the judgement of SRF Ltd. and the notification No. 34/2015-CE and 37/2015-CE as well as sweep of the judgement of SRF Ltd., vis-a-vis amendments and dealt with the applicability of the amendments in paragraphs 3-9 of the order passed by him. 13. We are informed that the Tribunal had earlier dismissed several appeals of the Revenue on the subject issue. To cite for records herein,....