9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (6) TMI 798 - AT - Central Excise100% EOU - exemption from NCCD imposed on POY cleared for captive consumption - Held that - NCCD is not leviable in respect of goods cleared availing the benefit of N/N. 108/95-CE dated 28.8.95 - NCCD is not leviable in respect of clearance to 100% EOUs also - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Imposition of National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) on goods manufactured by the appellant - Applicability of exemption notifications to goods cleared for captive consumption and to 100% EOUs Analysis: - The appellant, a manufacturer of Polyester chips, Partially Oriented Yarn (PTY), and Polyester Filament Yarn (PFY), was subject to NCCD at 1% Adv. from 01.03.2003 as per the Finance Act, 2001. An exemption was available for goods falling under heading no. 54.02 but not specifically for POY cleared for captive consumption. - The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for NCCD and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. - The issue had been previously decided by the same Bench in a case involving the appellant. The Tribunal had ruled that NCCD was not leviable on goods cleared for captive consumption based on precedents like Tatra Trucks India Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai and CCE, Trichy vs. Kulavi Tobacco industry. Additionally, the Tribunal applied the judgment in Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore to hold that NCCD was not applicable to goods cleared by 100% EOUs under Notification No. 108/95-CE. - Given the legal precedents and the similarity of facts, the Tribunal concluded that NCCD was not leviable on goods cleared for captive consumption or to 100% EOUs. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the Order-in-Appeal was set aside. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that NCCD was not applicable to goods cleared for captive consumption or to 100% EOUs based on established legal interpretations and precedents. The appeal was allowed, and the Order-in-Appeal was overturned.
|
