TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in favor of appellant. - C/84 & 91/2008 - 941-942/2008 - Dated:- 28-8-2008 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, P. Karthikeyan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Joseph Prabhakar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M.K.A.K. Mohiddin, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. The appellants imported silk yarn and silk fabric from China and filed 44 bills of entry during the period from February, 2007 claiming the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004 (as amended) in respect of Additional Duty of Customs (countervailing duty). The benefit was denied and CVD was demanded. The first appellate authority also held against the assessee. Hence the present appeal. 2. After examining the records and hearing both s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also relied on the Board s Circular No. 26/2004-Cus., dated 31-3-2004 as also on the decision of this Bench in Dhana Exim v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2006 (193) E.L.T. 565 (Tri.-Chennai)]. The learned JDR relies on the Tribunal s larger Bench decision in Priyesh Chemicals and Metals v. Commisisoner of Central Excise, Bangalore [2000 (120) E.L.T. 259 (Tri.-LB)] and submits that a similar condition attached to the exemption notification considered by the larger Bench was held to be applicable to the goods imported by the party. 3. After considering the submissions, we are of the view that the instant case needs to be examined without reference to other notifications but only with reference to the specific terms of the subject notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of silk fabric in India availing Cenvat credit on his input viz. silk yarn. In this view of the matter, the demand of CVD on yarn and fabric is challenged. 4. We have found a formidable point in the submissions of the learned counsel. It has been established that, during the period of dispute, an Indian manufacturer of yarn or fabric would not have been required to claim Cenvat credit on his input. In other words, there was no question of such manufacturer availing input-duty credit, the input being not chargeable to duty of excise. In this view of the matter, the demand of CVD on the yarn and fabric imported by the appellants is not sustainable in law. The impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
