TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of N/N. 6/02 - the benefit of N/N. 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 should be available to the appellants - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeals Nos.51620-51688/2015(DB) - C/A/56138-56206/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 18-8-2017 - Shri S. K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Rep. by Shri Prem Ranjan Kumar, Advocate for the appellants. Rep. by Shri R.K. Manjhi, DR for the respondent. ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty The issue involved in all these appeals is identical. Therefore, all these appeals, arising out of same impugned order, are taken up together for disposal. The denial of exemption provided under Notification no.30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 is the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, the Revenue has objected to the availment of the benefits contained in the notification dated 9.7.2004 in view of the judgement of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Prashray Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 6. Ld. DR specifically drew our attention to the paragraphs recorded in the judgement of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Prashray Overseas Pvt. Ltd (supra), which are as follows:- 45. Wherever the Notifications prescribed conditions, which were merely procedural in nature, but did not involve the payment of any duty of excise on the inputs, the Court interpreted the Notifications in favour of the assessee, in view of the fact that an importer could not comply with those procedural formalit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . . .. 59. Therefore, in the absence of any material to show that the processes indicated above would involve inputs, none of which would attract duty of excise, it is not possible to conclude that the first respondent would satisfy both conditions namely (a) payment of duty on the inputs and (b) the non-availing of Cenvat credit on the same. Though the Notification Bearing No.30/2004, dated 9-7-2004 does not stipulate the first condition, we have held that the first condition is inbuilt into the second condition. Therefore, the first respondent cannot be taken to have fulfilled the condition stipulated in the proviso to the Notification No.30/2004, dated 9-7-2004, unl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iii) In cases where the exemption Notification stipulates only one condition namely that no Cenvat credit ought to have been availed on the inputs, the benefit of the Notification will be available only to those, who satisfy two conditions namely that the inputs used by them suffered a duty and that they did not seek Cenvat credit. Since an importer can never satisfy the first condition, the second condition becomes inapplicable to him and he cannot be heard to contend that the inapplicability of the condition by itself would make him eligible for the grant of the benefit. (iv) In cases where the exemption Notification stipulates two conditions, namely that the inputs should have suffered duty and that no Cenvat credit should h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew petition filed against the judgement dated 26.03.2015 was dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court with the following observations:- Heard learned Counsel for the parties. We find no error, much less apparent error, in the order impugned. The review petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. 9. Further, on perusal of the judgement of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Prashray Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we find that the Hon ble High Court basically dealt with the issue of amendment in the notification no.30/2004 by notification no.37/2015 dated 21.07.2015. Since the present imports by the appellants are prior to such amendment and was specifically governed by Notification no.30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004, as it stoo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
