2006 (4) TMI 329 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 101/93 and Notification No. 32/94 regarding duty payment for goods cleared by 100% E.O.U.
2. Determination of assessable value for goods cleared by the appellant.
3. Applicability of Customs Act, 1962 in relation to duty payment by 100% E.O.U.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a dispute regarding the duty payable by 100% E.O.U. for clearance of goods. The appellant argued that being an E.O.U., they were subject to duty rates under the Customs Act, 1962, and thus, the assessable value should be determined as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. They contended that the specific law related to clearances from E.O.U. should prevail over general provisions. The appellant claimed that they had inadvertently paid the duty based on the tariff value of Rs. 105/- per kg. instead of the assessable value of Rs. 57/- per kg. as per the Customs Act, for which they sought a refund.

2. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Notification No. 101/93 and Notification No. 32/94. It was noted that the duty payable by 100% E.O.U. should not be less than the duty leviable on like goods produced outside the E.O.U. The Commissioner had confirmed the requirement for the appellant to pay a differential duty amount. The Tribunal found that the duty of Customs paid by the appellant was not less than the duties of Excise leviable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellant's reliance on the Customs Tariff Act was considered misplaced, and the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order for the payment of the duty.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the interplay between the Central Excise Act and the Customs Act, 1962 concerning the duty leviable for goods cleared by E.O.U. The duty payable by E.O.U. was determined based on the duties of Customs that would be leviable on like goods produced outside India. The Tribunal emphasized that to benefit from a notification, the appellant must comply with all its conditions and cannot selectively choose only the beneficial parts. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the appeal and upheld the Commissioner's order, stating that the duty calculation based on the tariff value was appropriate in this case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Respondent, upholding the duty payment requirement as determined by the Commissioner for the goods cleared by the 100% E.O.U., based on the relevant notifications and provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.