2006 (11) TMI 378 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Benefit of Notification No. 15/94-C.E. dated 1-3-94 to exclude countervailing duty (CVD) from excise duty quantification for goods removed by a 100% EOU to the domestic tariff area (DTA).
- Dispute regarding the duty of excise payable by the EOU for the mentioned goods during a specific period.
- Applicability of Notification No. 15/94-C.E. and whether the condition attached to it is relevant to imported goods.
- Interpretation of Tribunal's decision in Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. v. CCE Bangalore and its impact on the present case.
- Comparison of Tribunal's decision with the Bombay High Court's decision in Ashok Traders v. UOI.

Analysis:

1. The appeal concerned the department's challenge against the Commissioner (Appeals) order granting the benefit of Notification No. 15/94-C.E. to exclude CVD from the excise duty calculation for goods cleared by a 100% EOU to DTA. The dispute centered around the duty of excise payable by the EOU during a specific period. The EOU had excluded the CVD amount based on the notification's conditions, leading to a show-cause notice from the department.

2. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the Kudremukh Iron Ore case, where a similar notification was considered applicable to quantifying excise duty for goods cleared to DTA by a 100% EOU. The EOU's counsel also referenced this decision. In contrast, the department cited the Bombay High Court's decision in Ashok Traders, which was not directly relevant to the current case involving a 100% EOU. The Tribunal found the Kudremukh Iron Ore case directly applicable due to similarities in the notifications' conditions, supporting the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.

3. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing the appeal filed by the department. The judgment emphasized the relevance of precedent and the specific applicability of notifications in determining the duty of excise for goods cleared by a 100% EOU to DTA. The decision highlighted the importance of considering relevant case law and notifications in resolving disputes related to excise duty calculations.