TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Limited v. Collector of Customs (Bombay), New Customs House [1992 (8) TMI 156 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Hyderabad Industries Limited v. Union of India [1999 (5) TMI 29 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and AIDEK Tourism Services Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2015 (3) TMI 690 - SUPREME COURT] appellants were entitled to exemption from payment of CVD in terms of Notification No. 6/02. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the Order of the Ld.Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/217/10, C/140/10 & 3)C/141/10 - FO/A/76184-86/16 - Dated:- 9-11-2016 - Shri P.K.Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri K.C.Jena, ADC(AR) for the Appellant Shri S.K.Mehata, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Of Customs, Chennai (Supra), the Tribunal held as under: 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 notification. We have already reproduced the relevant condition attached to Notification 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nput-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. 5. It is noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SRF Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of Customs, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factured'. The use of the word so implies that the production or manufacture referred to in the second limb is relatable to the use of that expression in the first limb which is of a like article being produced or manufactured in India. The words if produced or manufactured in India do not mean that the like article should be actually produced or manufactured 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 productio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
