News Update

PM-STIAC discusses accelerating Industry-Academia Partnership for Research and InnovationIndia, Singapore hold dialogue over cyber policy44 bids received under 10th Round of Commercial Coal Mine AuctionsCops arrest former Dy PM of Nepal in cooperative fraud casePuri highlights India's Petrochemical potential at India Chem 2024UN reports record high cocaine production in ColombiaMinister unveils 'Aviation Park' showcasing India's Aviation HeritageED finds PFI wanted to start Islamic movement in IndiaBlocking Credit - Rule 86ASEBI says investors can use 3-in-1 accounts to apply online for securitiesI-T- Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) need not be imposed when assessee moved an adjournment application & later complied with notice u/s 142(1): ITAT4 Kanwariyas killed as vehicle runs over them in Banka, BiharI-T- Accounting principles do not prescribe maintaining of a day-to-day stock register, and the books of accounts cannot be rejected on this basis alone: ITATUN food looted and diverted to army in EthiopiaCus - Alleged breach of conditions for operating public bonded warehouse; CESTAT rightly rejected allegations, having found no evidence of any such breach: HCUS budget deficit surges beyond USD 1.8 trillionST - Onus for proving admissibility of Cenvat Credit rests with service provider under Rule 9(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: CESTATIf China goes into Taiwan, Trump promises to impose additional tariffsRussians love Indian films; Putin lauds BollywoodCus - Classification of goods is to be determined in accordance with Customs Tariff Act & General Interpretative Rules; Country-of-Origin Certificate may offer some guidance, but cannot solely dictate classification: CESTATCus - Benefit of such Country-of-Origin certificates cannot be denied if all relevant conditions are met under the applicable Customs Tariff rules: CESTATCuban power grid collapses; Country plunges into darknessCus - As per trite law, merely claiming a classification or exemption does not constitute mis-declaration or suppression - any misclassification does not equate to willful intent to evade duty: CESTATKarnataka mulling over 2% fee on aggregator platforms to bankroll gig worker welfare fundCus - Extended limitation cannot be invoked in case of assessee who is a regular importer with a consistent classification approach: CESTAT
 
Benefit of conditional Notification No 30/2004 is admissible for Silk Yarn & Silk Fabric imported - No error in Commissioner (A) order dropping demand - CESTAT dismisses revenue's appeals - Asks CBEC to include Notification in EDI

By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, SEPT 08, 2015: THE dispute in the instant appeals is whether the respondent importers are eligible for the benefit of Notification No 30/2004 CE for the purpose of claiming exemption from CVD on the Silk Yarn and Silk Fabrics imported. The Notification has a condition that the manufacturer shall not avail CENVAT Credit on the inputs. The Commissioner (Appeals) extended the benefit of the Notification and dropped the demands, but the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.

It is the contention of the revenue inter alia that the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order is contrary to the Board's circular No.37/2001 dt. 18.6.2001 clarifying that the imported goods will not be eligible for the benefit of conditional Central Excise Notification, when it is not possible to verify the condition of the notification. In the case of Motiram Tolaram - 2002-TIOL-856-SC-CUS the apex court has laid down the law relating to complying with a condition precedent to an excise notification in case of an import. That was not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court in SRF case. It is contended that that Motiram Toleram case was again approved by the constitutional Bench in the case of Dhiren Chemical Industries - 2002-TIOL-83-SC-CX.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal held:

Revenue relied on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Motiram Tolaram Vs UOI and the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Priyesh Chemicals & Metals. In this regard the Supreme Court in their recent order in the case of SRF Ltd. Vs CC Chennai - 2015-TIOL-74-SC-CUS held that the appellants are entitled to exemption from payment of CVD under Notification No.6/2002 and allowed the civil appeal.

Revenue's plea that the Apex Court decision of SRF Ltd. and M/s.Motiram Tolaram are in direct conflict is not acceptable. Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly considered all the previous decisions of Apex Court including the decision in the case of Motoram Tolaram Vs UOI. Therefore, the revenue relying on the above case law and also the LB decision in the case of M/s.Priyesh Chemicals & Metals are not relevant. In view of the latest decision of Apex court in SRF case & AIDEK Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd., the issue of CVD exemption under Notfn. 30/2004 on imported goods has attained finality. This Tribunal Bench decisions in the case of M/s.Prashray Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC Chennai stands confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision.

Before parting, it is brought on record that the respondents repeatedly pleaded that under ICES-EDI system the notification No.30/2004-CE dt. 9.7.2004 has not yet been uploaded and not figuring in the system for assessment even after a decade. This fact was already reported in this Tribunal order dt. 10.8.2010 in the case of M/s.Elegant Fabric Vs CC Chennai. Therefore, we bring to the notice of the Chairman, CBEC & DG (Systems), CBEC, New Delhi to rectify and upload the said notification in the EDI system at the earliest so that the Trade need not seek every time for manual assessment of Bill of Entry or file appeal against every assessed Bill of Entry under EDI before Commissioner (Appeals) as is happening at present in the Custom House.

(See 2015-TIOL-1887-CESTAT-MAD)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Samrat Choudhary, Hon’ble Deputy CM & FM of State of Bihar, delivering inaugural speech at TIOL Tax Congress 2024.



Justice A K Patnaik, Mentor to Hon'ble Jury for TIOL Awards 2024, addressing the gathering at the event.