ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. The issue involved in all the four appeals is identical and hence all of them are being disposed of by a common order.
2. Vide the impugned orders of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta, has demanded differential duty on the consignment of candles imported by the appellants from Nepal. The said candles were cleared by the appellant on payment of additional duty of customs equivalent to central excise duty @ 4% ad valorem on the CIF value declared in the bills of entries. The candles, classifiable under tariff sub-heading No. 3406.10, when manufactured in India, carry the central excise duty @ 16% ad valorem. However, in terms of Notification No. 85/98-Cus., dated 5-11-98, the imported goods carry concessional rate of additional duty of customs, subject to the conditions stipulated in proviso (2) of the said notification. Further in terms of Notification No. 3/2001-C.E., dated 1-3-2001, candles manufactured in India carry concessional rate of duty at 4% ad valorem provided no Cenvat is availed by the manufacturer. Since the manufacturer in Nepal was not entitled to the benefit of notification issued under the Central Excise Act, the authorities were of the view that the concessional rate as available to Indian manufacturer is not available in respect of the candles imported from Nepal while determining the countervailing duty. The authorities below have accordingly confirmed differential demand of duty by levying the candles to 16% CVD.
3. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant fairly agreed that the Five Member Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Priyesh Chemicals and Metals v. CCE, Bangalore – [2000 (120) E.L.T. 259 (Tri. – LB) = 2000 (38) RLT 588 (CEGAT-LB)] has held that Notification No. 19/98-C.E. granting exemption subject to the condition that no credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of zinc ash was taken cannot be held applicable while considering payment of countervailing duty in respect of imported goods inasmuch as the Central Excise Act and Rules do not apply to goods produced abroad. Applying the ratio of the above decision of the Larger Bench it cannot be said that Notification No. 3/2001 prescribing concessional rate of duty in case of non-availment of Cenvat on inputs would be applicable to the manufacturers of candles in Nepal. As such it cannot be said that the Nepal manufacturer has satisfied the conditions of the notification and as such the importer cannot claim lesser rate of countervailing duty. In view of the foregoing we find no merits in the appeals and reject the same.