9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against duty-demand confirmation under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 for availing benefits under Notification No. 2/95-CE; Denial of concessional rates of duty under Notification; Extension of validity period for Advance DTA Sale Permission; Grant of approvals by Ministry of Commerce leading to setting aside of duty-demand, penalties, and interests. Analysis: The appeal challenged the duty-demand confirmation of Rs. 7,52,89,329.75 under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, based on the appellant's failure to meet the export requirements under Notification No. 2/95-CE. The Commissioner linked the notification with the EXIM Policy, highlighting the necessity of exports within the stipulated period for availing benefits. Penalties under Section 11AC and interests under Section 11AB were also imposed by the Commissioner, prompting the appeal. The Unit had commenced commercial production and obtained permission for Advance DTA Sales of PET Resin under the EXIM Policy, 1997-2002. The conditions included identifiable items for DTA sales, excise duty payment upon removal, and bond execution as per policy provisions. The permission was extended up to September 30, 2001, allowing DTA sales alongside exports. However, a notice was issued later for recovery of excise duty under Section 11A, leading to the appeal. The Commissioner denied concessional duty rates under Notification No. 2/95-CE due to the Unit's failure to achieve NEEP and the alleged unauthorized extension of permission beyond three years. The Commissioner emphasized the non-fulfillment of NEEP requirements, lapsing of permission validity, and the Unit's alleged suppression of material facts. The appeal highlighted subsequent developments, including requests for extension and relaxation of conditions, approved by the Ministry of Commerce, leading to the setting aside of the duty-demand and related penalties and interests. Considering the grant of approvals by the Ministry of Commerce for the extension and relaxation of conditions, the Tribunal set aside the Impugned Order, concluding that the duty-demand, penalties, and interests could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed based on the developments and approvals received, rendering the Commissioner's findings untenable in light of the extended validity period for Advance DTA Sale Permission.
|
