2001 (10) TMI 668 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Benefit denial under Notification No. 25/99-Cus., dated 28-2-1999
- Applicability of Notification No. 2/95-C.E., dated 4-1-1995

Analysis:

Issue 1: Benefit denial under Notification No. 25/99-Cus., dated 28-2-1999
The appellant, a 100% Export-Oriented Unit, appealed against an order denying them the benefit of Notification No. 25/99-Cus., dated 28-2-1999. The appellant had cleared minimum foils in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) paying customs duty at 2.5%. However, a show cause notice demanded duty at 25%, which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The appellant argued that the effective duty rate under the mentioned notification was 5%, and they had paid appropriately as per Notification No. 2/95-C.E., dated 4-1-1995, granting 50% duty exemption for goods sold by Export-Oriented Units in the DTA. The JDR contended that the benefit of Notification No. 25/99-Cus. was for manufacturers of capacitors, which the appellant was not. The tribunal found no evidence that the foils were used for capacitors, thus ruling against the appellant's claim.

Issue 2: Applicability of Notification No. 2/95-C.E., dated 4-1-1995
Regarding Notification No. 2/95-C.E., dated 4-1-1995, the JDR argued that the appellant did not meet the conditions under Paragraph 9.9 of the Export-Import Policy for duty exemption. The appellant had cleared goods under Para 9.12 of the EXIM Policy, not falling within the criteria for the notification's benefit. The tribunal noted that the goods were not cleared as per the specified provisions of the policy, thus concluding that the appellant was not entitled to the exemption. Consequently, the tribunal rejected the appeal, stating that the appellant did not qualify for the benefits under either notification, based on the specific conditions and requirements outlined in the respective notifications and policies.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the tribunal's reasoning leading to the decision to reject the appeal based on the lack of fulfillment of the conditions stipulated in the relevant notifications and policies.