TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Further, it appears Revenue didn t make reference in the case about compliance of the conditions of the amended notification in respect of goods imported under Bills of Entry filed after amendment in the notification. It would be relevant to mention that it is settled law that exemption notifications are to be construed strictly and in case of any doubt, benefit goes to the department. It is also trite law that conditions of exemption notifications have to be strictly complied with for availing its benefit. The issue stands settled in favour of the appellant - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 50869 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO. 51850/2019 - Dated:- 21-10-2019 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9961687 05.06.2017 14 9797547 23.05.2017 2. On examination, the goods were found as per bi ll of entry. Since the importer had filed the bills of entry under the self assessment scheme and at the time of assessment neither sought benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-CE, therefore, the bills of entry were assessed finally without extending the benefit of the said Notification which grants exemption from CVD. 3. Subsequently, upon remand by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), order-in-original dated 23.11.2017 was passed rejecting the claim on the ground that firstly, the appellant had not claimed the benefit under self assessment scheme, sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the above proviso. This Explanation reads as follows:- Explanation:- For the purposes of this Notification, appropriate duty or appropriate additional duty includes nil duty or concessional duty, whether or not read with any relevant exemption Notification for the time being in force. 5. It was further observed that appropriate duty or appropriate additional duty in the said notifications includes Nil duty. Further observed that the notification clarifies that domestically manufactured goods covered under the notification continue to be exempted from excise duty or subject to concessional rate of duty as the case may be, as they were prior to 17.02.2015. As the Bills of Entry have been filed after 17.07.2015, that is after the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined finality. 12. We also find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the order passed by this Tribunal in the case of the respondent in which the benefit of notification No. 30 of 2004, as amended by notification 34 of 2007 and 37 of 2015 were extended to the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) held in paragraph 8 and 9 as follows. 8. Following the judgment of AIDEK Tourism Pvt. Ltd. Hon ble Supreme Court delivered another judgment on the same grounds in case of SRF Ltd. Reported in 2015 (318) ELT 607 (S.C.). In the case of SRF Ltd. Hon ble Apex Court further observed that the conditions which are not applicable to the importer and which the importer cannot fulfil would not be applied in case of the imported goods . 9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the case law of M/s Chemsilk Commerce Pvt. Ltd. Shri Aditya Sarda Vs. CC (Port), Kolkata (2015) (12) TMI 1000-CESTAT, Kolkata ] under which similar benefit has been extended to the appellant. 4. After hearing both sides and perusing the case records, it is observed that only ground under which Revenue filed this appeal is that department has filed a review petition in the Apex Court in the case of M/s ARF Ltd. (Supra) which is pending in the Apex Court. In view of dismissal of the review petition of the department by Apex Court by order dated 15.07.2016, appeals filed by the department are not sustainable. The issue has also been decided by this bench in the case of M/s Chemsilk Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Shri Aditya Sarda- Vs. CC (Port), K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of SRF Ltd., (supra) would not be applicable. As the impugned Bills of Entry have been filed after the two amendments, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned orders has rightly rejected the appeals holding that the ratio of SRF Ltd., (supra) is inapplicable in the case and upheld the orders-in-original rejecting benefit of the notification. 8.3 Appellants have placed reliance on the Coordinate Bench judgement in the case of Enterprises International Ltd. (Final Order No. FO/A/75172-75176/2019 dated 17.01.2019), wherein Departmental appeal has been dismissed. In the said order, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by Revenue following the previous orders of this Tribunal after observing that no appeal against these previous orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
