9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (9) TMI 486 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
- Duty payment on Diesel Generating Set cleared to 100% EOU against CT-3 certificate. - Requirement of approval from the Board of Approvals in terms of Notification No. 1/95-C.E. - Validity of duty-free clearance fulfilled by the appellants. - Relevance of buyer's approval from the Board of Approvals. - Authority of Central Excise Officer over duty-free clearance. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI involved the issue of duty payment on a Diesel Generating Set cleared to a 100% EOU against a CT-3 certificate. The authorities demanded duty because the buyer did not obtain approval from the Board of Approvals as per Notification No. 1/95-C.E. The appellants contended that all duty-free clearance requirements were met, and the demand was unjustified. They argued that the buyer's approval did not affect their right to exemption as they followed the necessary procedures. The appellants were represented by the Company's Managing Director and the Assistant Manager (Finance) who presented documents supporting their compliance, including the CT-3 certificate and AR-3A with re-warehousing endorsement. The Tribunal considered the arguments and documents presented by both sides. The learned JDR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). The key ground for demanding duty was the lack of buyer's approval from the Board of Approvals. However, the Tribunal noted that the buyer had been issued a CT-3 certificate, and the Range Officer at the appellants' end allowed duty-free clearance based on this certificate. Additionally, the Range Officer at the buyer's end endorsed the re-warehousing certificate on the AR-3A. The Tribunal emphasized that any omission by the buyer regarding approval was not a valid reason to demand duty on goods cleared with proper authorization from the Central Excise Officer. Consequently, the demand for duty was set aside, and the impugned order was overturned, allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
|
