2008 (1) TMI 245

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that credit of duty paid on inputs or on capital goods has not been taken under the Cenvat Credit Rules. 3. Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants inter alia argues as follows :- (i) The additional customs duty can be levied only equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article produced or manufactured in India. The condition in the Notification is clearly satisfied as the candles were manufactured in Nepal and admittedly, no duty credit has been availed under the Cenvat Credit Rules which are not applicable in Nepal. (iii) No further condition or restriction can be imposed, which is not there in the Notification, as held by the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court :- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eligible for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 3/2001-C.E. following the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Priyesh Chemicals and Metal v. CCE, Bangalore - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 259 (Tri-LB). It is the submission of Shri Biswas that since the appellants have not gone in appeal against the order passed in their own case, they are precluded from agitating the matter again. 6. Shri Bagaria, learned Sr. Advocate, in the above context, states that the cited decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.K. Synthetics (supra) and Hyderabad Industries (supra) were not brought to the notice of the Larger Bench which had decided earlier the appellants' own case. Hence, he urges this Bench to examine the matter afre .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ount of duty of excise on the inputs. In the present case, the Notification is also worded in a way to make the exemption conditional so that the inputs used in manufacture of candles pay duties without taking credit thereof. In our view, such a Notification cannot obviously be applied to imported goods, as has been correctly held by the Co-ordinate Bench in the appellants' own case (cited supra) as well as by the Larger Bench in the case of Priyesh Chemicals (cited supra). The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Motiram Tolaram (cited supra), has also been followed by one of us in the case of CC, Mumbai v. Parkash Co-op. Agro Industries - 2005 (192) E.L.T. 391 (Tri.-Mumbai) holding that an exemption which is conditional, subject to no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X