2007 (8) TMI 626 - AT - Central Excise

Demand and penalty - 100% EOU - rejects and waste - Held that - no case of diversion or use of the raw materials procured duty free for a purpose other than intended purpose, has been made out. Therefore, no valid grounds have been adduced to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner in so far as non-demand of duty on the raw materials and not taking the consequential penal action - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Department's appeal against Commissioner's order regarding excise duty on waste and rejects cleared in the domestic market.

Analysis:
The Department appealed against the Commissioner's order regarding the payment of excise duty on waste and rejects cleared in the domestic market by a 100% EOU that imported duty-free raw materials and procured duty-free indigenous materials for export manufacturing. The Department contended that excise duty on the raw materials contained in the waste and rejects, as well as customs duty on the inputs and excise duty on the inputs used in the manufacture of the finished goods, should be demanded along with penalties. The Commissioner confirmed excise duty and imposed a penalty but did not demand duty on the raw materials used in the waste and rejects above the duty on the final products, stating it was not a case of removal of duty-free inputs. The Department appealed against this decision.

Upon examining Section 72, the Tribunal noted that it pertains to goods improperly removed from the warehouse, applicable only to bonded goods. In this case, the raw materials were not cleared in contravention of the Customs Act but were used for manufacturing, with some finished goods being classified as waste and rejects and cleared domestically with permission from the Development Commissioner. The Tribunal found no evidence of diversion or misuse of duty-free raw materials for purposes other than intended. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision of not demanding duty on the raw materials and not imposing penalties, as no valid grounds were presented to challenge the findings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, affirming the Commissioner's decision regarding the non-demand of duty on raw materials and the absence of penal action. The judgment was pronounced on 16-8-2007 by the Tribunal.