2025 (6) TMI 1103 - AT - Customs

Applicability of N/N. 30/2004-CE dated 09/07/2004 as amended by N/N. 34/2015-CE dated 17/07/2015 and N/N. 37/2015-CE dated 21/07/2015 - imposition of additional customs duty on import of Silk Fabrics without dyed and without printed - HELD THAT - The amendment made by notification No. 34/2015-CE dated 17/7/15 provides a condition qua payment of duty on inputs and non-availment of Cenvat Credit by the manufacturer. Therefore the sweep of the judgment of SRF Ltd. 2016 (7) TMI 1381 - SC ORDER 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. The Honb le Supreme Court in the case of AIDEK Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (3) TMI 690 - SUPREME COURT has held that for the purpose of levy of duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act actual production or manufacture of a like article in India is not necessary. It is to be imagined that article imported has been manufactured or produced in India and it need to be seen as to what amount of excise duty was leviable thereon. Honb le Supreme Court held that the importer is to be treated as a manufacturer of the goods and thereafter the amount of Excise duty/Additional Duty that is required to be determined and paid. Considering the above cases it is now settled 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. Conclusion - The exemption under N/N. 30/2004-CE and its amendments applies to the imported silk fabrics in question entitling the importer to NIL CVD. There are no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and accordingly the same are sustained - appeal of Revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues Presented and Considered

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal were:

• Whether Notification No. 30/2004-CE, as amended by Notifications No. 34/2015-CE and No. 37/2015-CE, exempts imported silk fabrics (without dyeing or printing) from additional customs duty (Countervailing Duty - CVD).
• Whether the conditions stipulated in the notifications, particularly regarding non-availment of CENVAT credit on inputs by domestic manufacturers, can be imposed on importers for claiming exemption.
• The applicability and effect of judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgment in the SRF Ltd. case, and subsequent related rulings, on the interpretation of the relevant notifications and the entitlement to exemption from CVD.
• The impact of amendments introduced by Notifications No. 34/2015-CE and No. 37/2015-CE on the scope of exemption and the conditions for claiming the same.
• Whether the principle of res judicata and stare decisis applies to bar re-litigation of the issue in light of prior final judgments, including dismissal of appeals and review petitions by the Supreme Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Applicability of Notification No. 30/2004-CE and its Amendments to Imported Silk Fabrics

The legal framework revolves around Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004, which exempts certain goods from excise duty, and its amendments through Notifications No. 34/2015-CE and No. 37/2015-CE. The question was whether these notifications exempt imported silk fabrics, which are neither dyed nor printed, from the levy of additional customs duty (CVD).

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in SRF Ltd., which clarified that conditions in notifications that cannot be complied with by importers should not be imposed to deny exemption. The Court emphasized that the importer is deemed to have satisfied the conditions and is eligible for exemption from additional customs duty.

Key evidence included the self-assessment by the appellant claiming NIL CVD, based on the exemption notifications. The Court noted that raw silk, the input for silk fabrics, is exempt from excise duty in India, meaning domestic manufacturers do not pay excise on inputs and thus do not avail CENVAT credit on them.

The Tribunal relied on the precedent in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva Vs Ashima Dyecot Ltd., where it was held that if inputs are not chargeable to excise duty, no CVD can be levied on the imported commodity. This reasoning was applied to the present facts, affirming the exemption.

Competing arguments from the Revenue, which sought to impose CVD by invoking conditions of non-availment of CENVAT credit, were rejected on the ground that such conditions cannot be enforced on importers if they are incapable of compliance.

The conclusion was that the exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE and its amendments applies to the imported silk fabrics in question, entitling the importer to NIL CVD.

2. Interpretation of Judicial Precedents and Effect of Supreme Court Judgments

The Tribunal analyzed several judicial precedents, notably:

• The Supreme Court's decision in SRF Ltd., which settled the issue in favor of importers claiming exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE.
• The Madras High Court judgment in HLG Trading Co., which had initially taken a contrary view but was subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
• Decisions in Prashray Overseas and HLG Trading Co., which were rendered ineffective following the Supreme Court's dismissal of appeals in SRF Ltd.
• Other apex court rulings such as AIDEK Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that for CVD levy under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, the imported article is to be imagined as manufactured in India, and the excise duty payable on a like article determines the CVD rate.

The Court emphasized that the principle of stare decisis and res judicata applies, making the issue final and precluding the Revenue from reasserting claims contrary to settled law.

The Court noted that the Supreme Court's dismissal of the review petition in SRF Ltd. further cemented the binding nature of that ruling, overruling conflicting judgments and interpretations.

The Revenue's arguments based on the Madras High Court judgment and other precedents were treated as no longer good law.

3. Effect of Amendments by Notifications No. 34/2015-CE and No. 37/2015-CE

The amendments introduced conditions relating to payment of duty on inputs and non-availment of CENVAT credit by domestic manufacturers. Notification No. 37/2015-CE relaxed the condition by recognizing that nil payment of duty on inputs also qualifies as payment of duty.

The Tribunal held that these amendments do not alter the scope or purport of Notification No. 30/2004-CE, nor do they affect the Supreme Court's ruling in SRF Ltd. The conditions introduced cannot be enforced in a manner that denies exemption to importers who cannot comply with them.

The Commissioner (Appeals) had thoroughly examined these amendments and concluded that they do not restrict or impede the Supreme Court's judgment.

4. Principle of Level Playing Field Between Domestic Manufacturers and Importers

The Tribunal reiterated that since raw silk is exempt from excise duty and domestic manufacturers do not avail CENVAT credit on inputs, importers should not be denied exemption on the ground of non-fulfillment of such conditions. This ensures parity between domestic manufacturers and importers.

This principle was supported by the Tribunal's prior decisions, including the order in Commissioner of Customs (Port), West Bengal, Kolkata Vs. M/s. Enterprise International Ltd., which has attained finality.

Significant Holdings

"Notification conditions that the imported goods/importer were incapable of meeting cannot be thrusted upon thereby implying that the appellant in the present case had deemed to have satisfied the same and eligible for exemption from levy of said additional duty of Customs."

"When inputs contained in the imported commodity are shown to be not chargeable to duty of excise in India, there is no question of levy of countervailing duty on the imported commodity."

"The importer is to be treated as a manufacturer of the goods and thereafter the amount of Excise duty/Additional Duty that is required to be determined and paid."

"The condition which cannot be complied with would not be made applicable to the imported goods."

"Both the amended Notifications being No. 34/2015 C.E. and 37/2015 C.E. in no manner restrict or impede the Judgment of Honb'le Supreme Court in SRF Ltd."

Core principles established include:

• Exemption notifications must be interpreted in a manner that does not impose impossible conditions on importers.
• The amount of CVD payable on imported goods is to be determined by imagining the goods as manufactured in India and applying the excise duty payable on like goods.
• Where inputs for the goods are exempt from excise duty domestically, importers are entitled to NIL CVD.
• Amendments to notifications that do not alter the fundamental scope of exemption cannot be used to deny benefits already judicially recognized.
• Principles of res judicata and stare decisis bar re-litigation of settled issues, especially after dismissal of appeals and review petitions by the Supreme Court.

Final determinations:

• The appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the exemption claim were dismissed.
• The impugned orders granting exemption from additional customs duty on imported silk fabrics were upheld.
• The Revenue was precluded from imposing CVD on the imported goods under the notifications in question.