TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RF Ltd., M/s ITC Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, Commissioner of Customs (Import And General), New Delhi [2015 (4) TMI 561 - SUPREME COURT], and the decision is relied upon. - condition of non-availment of Cenvat credit was not fulfilled in as much as Cenvat credit was not admissible to the importer and the question of fulfilling of the said condition does not arise. Exemption allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th and claimed exemption from payment of CVD in terms of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09/7/2004. 3. From the order-in-original passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs in respect of 5 bills of entries we note that he has denied the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09/7/2004 by observing that the condition of non-availment of Cenvat credit by the manufacturer does not stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of SRF Ltd. vs. CC, Chennai reported as 2015 (318) E.L.T. 607 (S.C.) has considered identically worded Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 01/3/2002 which had the identical clause of the manufacturer having not availed the Cenvat credit. Its stand held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that CESTAT denied the exemption from CVD only on the ground that condition of non-availment of Cenvat credit was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
