9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mesh Arora, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri Deepak Thackur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Shri. V.G. Iyengar, Superintendent (AR). ORDER RAJU These appeals have been filed by Sony India Private Limited against order of Commissioner (Appeals) denying them the benefit of rectification under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also denying them the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 in respect of imports made by them for the purpose of CVD. 2. Learned Counsel pointed out that the issue regarding admissibility of the benefit of Notifications like Notification 12/2012-CE (supra) has been settled by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SRF Limited 2015 (14) SCC 596. In the said decision o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 1-3-2002. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs passed orders dated 12-4-2002 holding that the appellant was not entitled for exemption from payment of additional duty/countervailing duty (CVD) since it was not fulfilling Condition 20 of the aforesaid notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner and dismissed the appeal of the appellant vide orders dated 12-9-2002. In further appeal to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "CEGAT"), even CEGAT has affirmed the order of the authorities below and dismissed the appeal. 3. Entry/Sl. No. 122 in the Notification No. 6/2002 reads as under Sl. No. Chapter of Headin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court had held that "it is impossible to imagine a case where in respect of raw naphtha used in HDPE in the foreign country, Central excise duty leviable under the Indian Law can be levied or paid." Thus, CEGAT found that only those conditions could be satisfied which were possible of satisfaction and the condition which was not possible of satisfaction had to be treated as not satisfied. 6. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid reasoning is no longer good law after the judgment of this Court in Thermax (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs which was affirmed by the Constitution Bench in Hyderabad Industries Ltd. v. Union of India. 7. In a recent judgment pronounced by this very Bench in Aidek Tourism Services (P) Ltd. v. Commr. o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduced 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 production of a like article in India is not necessary. For quantification of additional duty in such a case, it has to be imagined that the article imported had been manufactured or produced in India and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
