TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nditions could be satisfied which were possible of satisfaction and the condition which was not possible of satisfaction had to be treated as not satisfied. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/62, 67, 86, 125-126, 135-136/10 - FO/A/76188-76194/2016 - Dated:- 11-11-2016 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri K. C. Jena, ADC(AR) for the Revenue Shri K. K. Sanyal, Consultant for the Respondent ORDER Per: Shri P. K. Choudhary 1. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 2. The respondents imported undyed and unprinted silk fabrics and claimed exemption benefit under Notification No.30/2004 dated 09.07.2004 for determining the additional customs duty (CVD). The appellate authority den ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification No.30/2004-C.E. ibid. Admittedly, both the yarn and fabric are eligible for exemption from payment of duty of excise under the above notification subject to the above condition. The question now arises as to whether this condition works in relation to the goods imported by the assessee. Incidentally, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel that this is a condition which does work in relation to a large number of goods mentioned in the Table annexed to the notification. However, according to the learned counsel, the condition is unworkable in relation to silk yarn and fabric. It has been submitted that raw silk/silk filament, which is a natural product, is the input for silk yarn and the same is not chargeable to duty of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms, Chennai (Supra) on the identical issue, allowed the appeal of the importer. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below: 7. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid reasoning is no longer good law after the judgment of this Court in Thermax Private Limited v. Collector of Customs (Bombay), New Customs House [1992 (4) SCC 440 = 1992 (61) E.L.T. 352 (S.C.)] which was affirmed by the Constitution Bench in the case of Hyderabad Industries Limited v. Union of India [1999 (5) SCC 15 = 1999 (108) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)]. In a recent judgment pronounced by this very Bench in the case of AIDEK Tourism Services Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [Civil Appeal No. 2616 of 2001 - 2015 (318) E.L.T. 3 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ured in India. As per the explanation if an imported article is one which has been manufactured or produced, then it must be presumed, for the purpose of Section 3(1), that such an article can likewise be manufactured or produced in India. For the purpose of attracting additional duty under Section 3 on the import of a manufactured or produced article the actual manufacture or production of a like article in India is not necessary. For quantification of additional duty in such a case, it has to be imagined that the article imported had been manufactured or produced in India and then to see what amount of Excise duty was leviable thereon. (Emphasis supplied) 8. We are of the opinion that on the facts of these cases, these appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
