TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (5) TMI 72
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India. Domestic production of Zinc Ash was liable to Central Excise Duty under Chapter 26 of Central Excise Tariff subject to the exemption under notification 19/88 during the period of import. The appellants eligibility to this exemption is the subject matter of the present appeal. 2.The proviso to Notification No. 19/88 as amended by Notification No. 27/91, contained the following condition : "Provided that no credit of duty paid on the inputs, used in the manufacture of said goods, has been taken under Rule 56A or 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944." 3.The appellant's claim to the exemption was rejected on the ground that the goods did not satisfy the afo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(P) Ltd. was at variance with ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Thermax case (Supra) and the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Ashok Traders (Supra). 4.When the case came up for hearing on 29-3-2000 before us none appeared for the appellant. However, they have filed written submission vide letter dated 18-3-2000 and prayed that the case may be decided after taking into account the written submission. Accordingly, we are deciding the case after hearing the ld. D.R. for the Revenue and perusing the written submission of the appellant. 5.As already stated the issue involved is the levy of additional customs duty on imported goods. The appellants do not contest dutiability of the goods to additional customs duty. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eligible for the exemption. 6.As against the aforesaid submissions of the appellant, the ld. D.R. has contended that even as exempted rates of Central Excise Duty are applicable for levy of additional customs duty, the importers would be eligible for the exempted rates only if they fulfilled the conditions stipulated in the exemption Notification. He has submitted that this position remains confirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Thermax case (Supra). He drew our attention in particular to the reference made by the CEGAT to South Regional Bench to the Thermax decision in its order. He pointed out that in the Thermax case also, benefit of central excise exemption was claimed on imported goods. The Supreme Court held that the exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s no dispute that exemption notification under Central Excise Act and Rules applied to imported goods for the purpose of levy of additional duty of Customs. There is also no dispute that the imported goods/importers should satisfy the conditions of exemption Notifications if they claim the benefit of exemption. This is the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Thermax case (supra) and the Bombay High Court in the Ashok Traders case (Supra). We are in complete agreement with the Revenue on this issue. In the present case, the appellants are contending that they satisfied the condition stipulated in the Proviso to Notification No. 19/88 by stating that they had not availed themselves of Modvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondition of the said Notification was that artificial or synthetic resins is manufactured from raw Naphtha "on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid". The High Court held that imported goods would not be eligible for the exempted rates under the notification as it is obvious that imported goods cannot satisfy the condition relating to payment of excise duty on raw-material. We read the relevant observation in the judgment :- "7. .................The submission was advanced by urging that the rate of countervailing duty should be in accordance with the exemption Notification No. 302/79, dated December 4, 1979 issued by the Central Govt. in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Cen....