9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (2) TMI 610 - AT - Customs100% EOU - Import of scrap - Clearance of imported goods to DTA -As submitted by the learned DR, Notification No. 83/90-Cus. has been used for the purpose of calculation of rate of duty and to facilitate clearances of scrap for recycling for use electric or furnace. In our view, the matter is very clear and there is no doubt that duty is demandable under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 in terms of the bond executed by the appellant and in terms of the conditions of notification under which the goods were cleared to DTA. Therefore, on merits appellants have no case and accordingly, the duty demand has to be upheld. As regards penalty, since the goods were cleared under notification after execution of bond with the knowledge of the department and in respect of a considerable portion of the goods, appellants had furnished end use certificate, we consider it appropriate that a lenient view as regards penalty is called for. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on the appellant is set-aside.
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of demanding customs duty vs. Central Excise duty. 2. Compliance with Notification No. 83/90-Cus. for concessional duty rate. 3. Execution of bond and proof of use of imported scrap in electric arc furnace. 4. Imposition of penalty based on duty demand. Analysis: 1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing electrical stamping and laminations, imported scrap for recycling in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and sold it to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). The appellant claimed concessional duty under Notification No. 83/90-Cus. for use in electric or induction furnace. However, due to failure in proving the use of scrap in the furnace, a duty demand of Rs. 21,59,348/- was confirmed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and a penalty of Rs. One lakh was imposed. 2. The consultant argued that the demand was for customs duty, not Central Excise duty, and the Commissioner exceeded the show cause notice's scope. The appellant contended that since the goods were cleared under bond with department knowledge, penalty was unwarranted. Conversely, the Department argued that duty was rightly demanded under Central Excise Act, not under Notification No. 83/90-Cus. 3. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and found that the appellant imported various scrap types under Notification 83/90, cleared it to DTA after mutilation, and availed benefits under Notification No. 2/95-Central Excise for 100% EOU. The duty demand was upheld under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, based on the bond execution and notification conditions. The penalty was set aside due to goods clearance with department knowledge and submission of end-use certificates for a significant portion. 4. The judgment concluded that the duty demand against the appellant was valid, while the penalty was revoked. The Tribunal emphasized the clear application of duty provisions under the executed bond and notification conditions, leading to the decision to uphold the duty demand while leniently setting aside the penalty. This detailed analysis highlights the jurisdictional dispute, compliance with notification conditions, bond execution, and penalty imposition based on duty demand in the legal judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, AHMEDABAD.
|
