Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Artex Textiles Pvt. Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & St, ... on 16 June, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH 160 017 COURT NO. I Appeal No. C/55178-55200/2013-DB Date of Hearing/ Decision : 16.06.2017 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. OIA-180-202/CUS/APPL/DLH-IV/2012 dated 04.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & ST, Delhi (Faridabad)] For approval and signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) M/s. Artex Textiles Pvt. Limited : Appellant vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Delhi (Faridabad) : Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Prem Ranjan Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant(s) Shri Vijay Gupta, A.R. for the Respondent(s) CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 61137-61159/2017 Per : Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal against the impugned orders wherein the benefit of Notification No.30/2004CE dated 09.07.2004 has been denied to the appellants.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant imported Polyester Knitted Fabrics and PVC Coated Fabrics and claimed exemption from payment of duty (CVD) in terms of Notification No. 30/2004CE dated 09.07.2004. As all the appeals are arising out of a common order and raising a same issue, all are taken up together for disposal by a common order.
3. Ld. Counsel submits that in their own case vide final Order No. 51369-51665/2016 dated 28.04.2016 this Tribunal has allowed the benefit of exemption notification. He further relied on the decision in the case of Monte Carlo Fashions Limited & Others- final Order No. 60733-60799/2017 dated 11.04.2017.
4. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. We find that identical issue came up before this Tribunal in the appellants own case, for the earlier period and admittedly the impugned orders in question are pertaining to the period April 2012 to May 2012, which is well prior to 17 July 2015 i.e. when the Notification No. 34/2015-CE dated 17.07.2015 was introduced. As the issue has already been decided by this Tribunal in the appellants own case and in the case of Monte Carlo Fashions Limited (supra), observing as under:-
6. We find that in the appellants own case in one of the import of the said goods, this Tribunal has examined the issue and observed as under:
6. The Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 provided for full exemption of various excisable goods. The condition is that the said exemption shall not apply to the goods in respect of which the credit of duty on inputs has been taken under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. We note that while examining a similar situation in respect of the exemption Notification No. 06/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002, the Honble Supreme Court held that such exemption from the payment of CVD is applicable to the assessee in case of import. The Honble Supreme Court examined the scope of section 3 (1) of the Central Excise Tariff Act and held that for quantification of additional duty it has to be imagined that the article imported had been manufactured or produced in India and then to see what amount of excise duty was leviable thereon.
7. We have also examined the decision of Honble Madras High Court in the case of HLG Trading (supra). The Honble Madras High Court was deciding the challenge of vires of Notification No.34/2015-CE dated 17.7.2015 and Notification No.37/2015-CE dated 21.7.2015 which substituted the proviso condition relating to eligibility of exemption for Central Excise duty. We note that the proviso after Para-1 of exemption Notification No. 30/2004-CE was substituted on 17.7.2015 vide Notification No. 34/2015. Such substitution changed the scope of the condition and is subsequent to the decisions of Honble Supreme Court cited above. The Honble Madras High Court dismissed the challenge of the assessee against amendment which substituted the condition.
5. In view of the above, we set-aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the court) Devender Singh Member (Technical) Ashok Jindal Member (Judicial) KL 3 Appeal No. C/55178-55200/2013