2006 (9) TMI 38 - AT - Central Excise

Export - Raw material obtained duty free on CT-2 certificate -Assessee procured goods ,utilise them manufactured on job work and finally exported - Removal on job work by assessee not to be considered as a reason to deny duty free receipt of raw material

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of benefit under Notification No. 49/94 for duty-free procurement of raw material.
2. Interpretation of conditions under Notification No. 49/94 regarding the role of the ultimate exporter in the manufacturing process.
3. Consideration of job work processes in determining eligibility for duty-free procurement under CT-2.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal pertains to the eligibility of M/s. Somani Overseas Corporation for the benefit under Notification No. 49/94 for duty-free procurement of raw material. The appellant, an exporter, obtained a CT-2 Certificate for acquiring POY/PFY from another entity. The appellant did not directly engage in manufacturing activities but utilized independent units for texturizing, weaving, and processing the raw material. The Revenue contended that the appellant was not eligible for the benefit as they were not directly involved in the manufacturing process.

Issue 2:
The interpretation of conditions under Notification No. 49/94 was a crucial aspect of the case. The Revenue argued that the ultimate exporter, to avail benefits, should be a manufacturer of the intermediate goods and the resultant articles. However, the Notification did not explicitly require all manufacturing processes to be carried out at the exporter's premises. The definition of manufacture under Rule 13 was considered broad, encompassing various processes beyond those defined in the Central Excise Act. The appellant's compliance with registration requirements and obtaining a CT-2 Certificate were highlighted in their favor.

Issue 3:
The consideration of job work processes in determining eligibility for duty-free procurement under CT-2 was significant. The Tribunal observed that the repeated job work dispatch of intermediate goods and their return did not warrant denial of duty-free status. The appellant's procurement, utilization through job work manufacturing, and subsequent exportation of the resultant product were found to align with the Notification's intent. The absence of material diversion and the appellant's adherence to registration and procedural requirements supported their claim for the benefit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the Revenue's appeal to be without merit and rejected it. The judgment emphasized the broad interpretation of manufacturing processes under the Notification, the lack of requirement for all processes to occur at the exporter's premises, and the validity of job work arrangements in availing duty-free procurement benefits under CT-2.