9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... un Kumar, AR- for the respondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa The appellant is in appeal against the impugned orders. As the issue involved in all the appeal is common, the same are being disposed of by a common order. Two issues are involved: (A) Whether the appellants are entitled for benefit of exemption from payment of CVD in terms of Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 or not? (B) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in the case of SRF Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai reported as 2015 (318) ELT 607 (S.C) has considered identically worded Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 01/03/2002 which has 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge, we also note that Commissioner (Appeals) has made observations that the assessee had not claimed the benefit of the notification at the time of filing Bills of Entry. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Share Medical Care Vs. UOI - 2007 (209) ELT 321 (S.C.), has observed that even if the claim of benefit under a particular notification is not made at the initial stage, the assessee ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds decided by the Tribunal in the same appellant's case vide the earlier order being Final Order No.61168-61181/2017 dated 19/06/2017. In fact, it is seen that in the present impugned order reliance stands placed on her earlier Order-in-Appeal No.77-86/Cus/Appl/DLH-IV/2012 dated 02/08/2012. The said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which stands referred by her in the present impugned order was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
