Page 180 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

66 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

exemption to all the goods imported into India falling under the Tariff Item 2716
00 00 from whole of the duties which are specified in the First Schedule. There-
fore, in terms of provisions of Section 30(a) of the SEZ Act, when no customs du-
ty is payable on the goods imported in India, no duty will be payable on identical
goods removed from SEZ to DTA. According to the Learned Counsel, the ex-
pression “leviable” as used in Section 30(a) of the SEZ Act, is to be interpreted
not in context of the word “levy”, which means chargeability, but in context of
the word “payable” so as to create a level playing field. Reliance was placed up-
on the decision of this Court in the case of Roxul Rockwool Insulation India Pvt. Ltd.
v. Union of India, 2015 (320) E.L.T. 554 (Guj.), wherein this Court while dealing
with Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 wherein the Court in the context
of a similar expression, namely, “be liable to a duty equal to excise duty for the
time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India”, has
observed thus :
“18. … … … If, therefore, by virtue of an exemption notification, the
whole of the excise duty payable as prescribed in the Central Excise Tariff
Act is exempt for the local manufacturers, no CVD would be payable under
Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act on import of such goods. … … How-
ever, the central concept remains the same, namely, the importer would
have to pay CVD equivalent of excise duty payable on a like article if pro-
duced or manufactured in India. In the present case, by virtue of the ex-
emption notifications on a like article produced or manufactured in India,
there is no duty of excise payable or leviable is leviable. In other words, ex-
cise duty levied on such articles manufactured in India being nil, the CVD
also, in terms of Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, would be nil.”
5.2 Reference was also made to the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Aidek Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2015 (318)
E.L.T. 3, wherein the Court, while dealing with Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff
Act, 1975, in the context of the expression “leviable” used in sub-section (1) of
Section 3 thereof, has, inter alia, observed that for quantification of additional du-
ty in such a case, it has to be imagined that the article imported had been manu-
factured or produced in India and then to see what amount of excise duty was
leviable thereon. It was submitted that it is now settled that a rate of duty would
be only that which an Indian manufacturer would pay under the Excise Act with
reference to the like article. Therefore, the importer would be entitled to payment
of concessional/reduced or nil rate of CVD, if any notification is issued provid-
ing exemption/remission to excise duty for the like article, if pro-
duced/manufactured in India. It was pointed out that in the case of Union of In-
dia v. Engee Industrial Services Co. Ltd., 2016 (335) E.L.T. 197, the Supreme Court
has once again confirmed the above view and observed as under :
“1. … … … The basis of the judgment of the High Court is that when ex-
cise duty is exempted, there is no question of payment of additional duty.
For this purpose, the High Court has referred to the Constitution Bench
judgment of this Court in Hyderabad Industries Limited v. Union of India.
2. In these appeals, the appellants have not controverted the aforesaid
plea, viz., no excise duty is payable and the product manufactured in India
is exempted from excise duty. In view thereof, the aforesaid judgment of
this Court stands attracted to the facts of this case and we do not find any
infirmity in the view taken by the High Court.”
5.3 It was submitted that in all the above decisions, the expression “lev-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  228