TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 653
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Customs (Appeals-I), Chennai. 1.2 The Respondent, M/s. Bright Point India Ltd. New Delhi, imported mobile phones during the period May to July 2015 under multiple Bills of Entry and classified the same under CTH 85171290. At the time of import, the Respondent discharged Countervailing Duty (CVD) at the rate of 12.5% on MRP basis along with applicable National Calamity Contingent Duty. Subsequently, the Respondent claimed benefit of concessional rate of CVD @ 1% in terms of Notification No. 12/2012-CE (Sl. No. 263A), contending that the condition of non-availment of CENVAT credit stood satisfied. The original authority denied the benefit holding that imported goods cannot fulfil the condition relating to non-availment of credit on inpu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is inherently linked to the manufacturing process and cannot be presumed to be satisfied in the case of imports. The Appellant also submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SRF Ltd. cannot be applied mechanically, particularly in view of subsequent clarifications and amendments which, according to them, restrict the applicability of exemption where such conditions cannot be fulfilled. 5. None appeared on behalf of the Respondent, nor were any written submissions filed. However, since the Impugned Order is in their favour, the findings and reasoning contained therein are taken as representing the submissions of the Respondent. 6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions made by the appellants and the Revenue and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l duty equal to excise duty is necessary to maintain equilibrium. However, the said decision has to be read in the light of the subsequent binding judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SRF Ltd. 8.3 We note that the Department has come in appeal mainly on the ground that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SRF Ltd. 2015(318) ELT 607(SC), relied upon by the Impugned Authority, was not accepted by the Department and that a Special Leave Petition had been filed and admitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this regard, we find that the legal position as it stands today does not support the contention of the Department, inasmuch as the issue has attained finality upon dismissal of the review petitions by the Hon'bl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....credit has been availed. [Commissioner v. SRF Ltd. - 2016 (340) E.L.T. A202 (S.C.)]" 8.5 In view of the above authoritative pronouncement, the contention of the Department that the judgment has not attained finality is against facts as on the date. However, it has to be noted that the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was dated 27.08.2015. 8.6 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the Appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE New Delhi Vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal, 2010 (260) ELT (3) to contend that exemption notifications are to be strictly construed. While there is no dispute regarding the said principle, the same is distinguishable in the facts of the present case. 8.7 In the case of Hari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court supra. It is also seen that the High Court did not have occasion to consider the legal fiction created under Section 3, whereby imported goods are to be treated as if manufactured in India for the purpose of determining duty and exemption. Moreover, the issue before the High Court pertained to the validity and applicability of amended notifications, whereas the present dispute relates to the entitlement of exemption in terms of the law declared in SRF Ltd. prior to and independent of such amendments. It is a settled principle that a judgment rendered in a different factual and statutory context cannot be applied mechanically. Further, in the event of any apparent divergence, the binding precedent of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the present case stands settled by the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SRF Ltd. (Supra), as subsequently affirmed upon dismissal of the review petition. The contention of the Department that the said judgment was not accepted or had not attained finality is found to be factually and legally untenable. The Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that for the purpose of levy of Additional Customs Duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, imported goods are to be treated as if manufactured in India and the rate of duty, including exemption, has to be determined accordingly. Therefore, once like goods manufactured in India are eligible for concessional rate subject to non-availment of CENVAT credit, the same....