Judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of M/S SRF Ltd. versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai —Clarification relating to notifications No. 30/2004/-CE dated 09.07.2004, No. 1/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011 and No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012, as amended - Customs - PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 08/2015

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) 5TH FLOOR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BIR CHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA - 800 001 C. No. VIII(48)05-10/Cus/Tech/Public Notice/2014/7112 Dated: 18.08.2015 PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 08/2015 Subject: - Judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of M/S SRF Ltd. versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai -Clarification relating to notifications No. 30/2004/-CE dated 09.07.2004, No. 1/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011 and No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012, as amended - Reg. Attention of the importer, trade and field formation is invited towards Judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of M/S SRF Ltd. versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai and M/S ITC Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Customs (I G), New Delhi relating to CVD exemption. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the benefit of excise duty exemption (available to final products manufactured by the domestic manufacturer, subject to the Condition of non-availment of CENVAT credit of duty on inputs or capital goods used by such manufacturer for manufacture of such final products) will also be available to the importers of such final products for the purposes of CVD on the ground that the importer was not availing-the credit of duty on inputs or capital goods. 2. The implication of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement was that all such final products when imported by manufacturer importer would have attracted concessional excise duty as CVD, while the domestic manufacturer of such final products had to forgo input fax credit to be eligible for such concessional rate. This would put the domestic manufacturers at a disadvantage vis- -vis imports and would adversely impact the Make in India Policy of the Government. 3. Keeping in view the adverse implications of the aforesaid judgement on the domestic industry, legal opinion was sought from the Ministry of Law h as to whether pending the aforesaid Review Petition/ Revision Application, such conditions in the relevant notifications be suitably amended so as to make the intention abundantly clear (that these conditions are to be satisfied by the manufacturers of such goods and not the buyer/ importer of such goods). 4. With the opinion of the Ministry of Law Justice and concurrence of the Ld. Attorney General notifications No. 34/2015-CE, No. 35/2015-CE and No. 36/2015-CE all dated 17.07.2015were issued amending the conditions in notifications No. 30/2004/-CE dated 09.07.2004, No. 1/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011 and No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 respectively by the Board. 5. In the above context, apprehensions have been raised about the use of the phrase of appropriate duty . In this regard, Explanations have been inserted in the notifications No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004, No. 1/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011 and No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 by the Board so as to clarify that the appropriate duty or appropriate additional duty or appropriate service tax for the purposes of the said notifications/ entries includes nil duty or tax or concessional duty or tax, whether or not read with any relevant exemption notification for the time being in force. 6. It may, therefore, be noted that the domestically manufactured goods covered under these notifications/ entries continue to be exempt from excise duty or subject to concessional rate of excise duty, as the case may be, as they were prior to 17 th July, 2015. Authority : Circular No. 1005/12/2015-CX issued from F.NO. 336/ 4/ 2015-TRU dated 21.07.i015. Sd. (Kishori Lal) Commissioner