9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paying duties at merit rates including CVD at 10% Ad valorem. In the Union Budget 2012, vide Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 issued under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (which is corresponding Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 for issuance of exemption notification) the CVD applicable (Central Excise Duty) for goods covered under CTH 68022190 has been prescribed at Rs. 30 per SQM. Further, vide DO letter No. DOF No. 334/3/2012 TRU dated 16.03.2012, the Board has issued certain clarification with regard to inclusion of CETH 68022190 in the said notification (12/2012 dated 17.03.2012) by amending the earlier Notification No. 04/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. The earlier Notification included Marble Slabs and Marble Tile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em on the imported marble slabs under Notification No. 04/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 which was subsequently amended vide Notification No. 12/2012 dated 17.03.2012 and it was incorporated that the rate of CVD marble slabs and tiles was prescribed at Rs. 30 per SQM and the distribution of the goods were generally in nature which encompass in its ambit all marble slabs and tiles without any differentiation or characterization with reference to any quality or category. He further submitted that on representation by the trade to the CBEC New Delhi. CBEC issued a clarification vide circular dated 16.03.2012 wherein it has been clarified that from 01.03.2006, the CVD should have been levied and charged at Rs. 30 per SQM with reference to description ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that polished marble slabs are classifiable under CTH 68022190 and that relevant exemption entry in the Notification is amended to this also. The Chennai Tribunal has held that denial of benefit of notification is unjust and set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal of the assessee/importer in the case of Oriental Trimax Ltd vide Final Order No. 41719-41720/2017 dated 14.08.2017. 4.3. The Learned Counsel further submitted that the Commissioner (A) has wrongly observed in the impugned order that the appellant does not contest the issue on limitation whereas the appellant has strongly contested the issue of limitation before him. He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) has wrongly applied unjust enrichment and has not consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (A) has examined the issue of unjust enrichment and thereafter, vide its order dated 23.10.2018, the Commissioner (A) has held that the burden of excess duty was borne by the appellant and has not passed on to their buyer. We find that the appellant has relied upon various decisions to prove that duty burden has not been passed on to the buyer and has been borne by themselves. For this also, the appellant relied upon the various decisions but the same were not considered by the Commissioner (A). In view of all these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore we set aside the same and further we remand the matter to the Commissioner (A) for the purpose of examining the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
