SRF LTD. Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Appeal filed By M/s. SRF Ltd., the issue involved is whether benefit of exemption under Notification No. 6/2002 dated 1.3.2002 (S. No. 122) is available to the goods imported by the Appellants.

(2.) Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants had imported Nylon Filament yarn of 210 deniers; that in respect of Additional Customs Duty leviable under Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act equivalent to the Central Excise duty they claimed exemption in terms of Serial No. 122 of Notification No. 6/2002 C.E; that the Deputy Commissioner, following the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Priyesh Chemicals & Metals v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, 2000 (38) RLT 588 denied the benefit of exemption Notification as the condition of the notification was not fulfilled; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has also rejected the Appeal on the same ground. Learned Advocate, further, submitted that the condition specified in the Notification is that no credit under Rule 3 or Rule 11 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 has been taken in respect of the inputs or capital goods used in the manufacture of the goods; that this condition was fully satisfied in the case of imported goods since no credit of duty is availed in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of Nylon Filament Yarn of 210 deniers imported by them. He, further, contended that for the purpose of determining the countervailing duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff, one has to determine the excise duty for the time being leviable on the like articles produced or manufactured in India; that the like articles would be Nylon 210 deniers yarn manufactured in India, without availing the CENVAT Credit and since such Nylon yarn is chargeable to nil rate of duty, the imported Nylon 210 Deniers yarn is also chargeable to nil rate of duty. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of Thermax Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs .

(3.) COUNTERING the argument Shri Vikas Kumar, learned Senior Departmental Representative submitted that the matter stands decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Priyesh Chemicals & Metals (supra); that the in the said decision, the benefit of Notification No. 19/88 CE was denied for levy of Additional Customs duty in respect of Zinc Ash imported by the Appellants on the ground that the consignment did not fulfill the requirements of the Notification which stipulated that no credit of duty paid on inputs used for the manufacture of goods have been taken under Rule 56A or 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. He also relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ashok Traders v. Union of India wherein it has been held that "It is impossible to imagine a case where in respect of raw naptha used in HOPE in the foreign country, Central Excise duty leviable under the Indian Law can be levied and paid". He mentioned that Bombay High Court did not extend the benefit of Notification to the petitioner.