Order Date – 21 March 2023

Parties: M/s Soir International, M/s Sedna Impex India Pvt. Ltd., & M/s Elvance Overseas LLP Vs Commissioner of Customs

Facts –

• The Appellants, M/s Soir International and others imported goods and self-assessed duty under section 17(1) and filed Bills of Entry which were re-assessed by the proper officers under section 17 (4) enhancing the duty and enied the benefit of Central Excise Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 as amended by Notification No. 34/2015-CE dated 17.7.2015 on the additional duty of Customs.

Issue –

• Whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Central Excise Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 as amended?

Order –

• The Tribunal held that the condition of the goods being manufactured out of duty paid inputs is impossible or at least extremely unlikely to be fulfilled in imported goods. It is not even disputed that this condition was not fulfilled. The submission of appellant that this condition should not apply to imported goods are no agreeable. The notification does not draw a distinction or make an exception to imported goods.
• The undisputed position is that there are two conditions (1) no CENVAT credit should have been availed which is fulfilled and (2) that excise duty should have been paid on the inputs which has not been fulfilled.
• The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in HLG Trading and in Prashray Overseas held that the benefit of the exemption notification will not be available to the imported goods. Therefore, it was held that the benefit of the exemption notification 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 as amended by Notification No. 34/2015-CE dated 17.7.2015 will not be available to the goods which are imported.
• Respectfully following the judgment of the Madras High Court, it was held that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 as amended by Notification No. 34/2015-CE dated 17.7.2015 for the CVD on the imported goods.