9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (2) TMI 1088 - AT - Central ExciseDTA sale - no permission from the Development Commissioner for the sale of goods in DTA in respect of multimeter, Transducers, Accessories etc. thus not eligible for the benefit of concessional rate of duty specified under Notification No. 2/95-CE dated 4.1.95 - non computation of duty correctly in respect of panel meters cleared to DTA - Held that - DTA sale entitlement is considered in totality and not with reference to specific items. Therefore, DTA sale can be effected of all the items specified in the LOP without any separate permission for each of the items. Para 9.9 of the EXIM Policy and para 9.24 of Handbook of Procedure make it abundant clear once a permission is given to sell in DTA, it will apply to all the products specified in the LOP. In view of this position, there is no ground for denial of the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 2/95-C.E dated 4.1.95. Whether duty should be computed on the basis of 50% of the aggregated duties of customs or on the basis of 50% of each of the customs duty as per Notification No. 2/95-C.E - Held that - This issue has already been considered and decided in the case of M/s. Vikram Ispat vs. CCE 2000 (8) TMI 111 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI and Futura Polymers vs. CCE Chennai 2002 (11) TMI 156 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI wherein it has been held that the duty has to be computed on the basis of 50% of each of the duties of the customs and not on the basis of 50% of the aggregated duties of the customs.
Issues:
1. Clearance of goods to DTA without proper permission. 2. Computation of duty under Notification No. 2/95-CE. 3. Entitlement to concessional rate of duty. 4. Bunching of products under DTA sale. Analysis: 1. Clearance of goods to DTA without proper permission: The case involves an appeal by M/s. Rishabh Instruments Pvt. Ltd. against a duty demand raised by the Commissioner of Central Excise for clearing items other than panel meters to DTA without permission. The Commissioner held that without specific permission for items other than panel meters, the concessional duty under Notification No. 2/95-CE does not apply. The Tribunal considered the clarification from the Development Commissioner's office, stating that DTA sale entitlement is determined in totality, allowing the sale of all products specified in the LOP without separate permission for each item. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating they were entitled to the concessional rate of duty under the said Notification. 2. Computation of duty under Notification No. 2/95-CE: The Commissioner found an error in the computation of duty by the appellant, confirming the duty demand for not calculating duty correctly under Notification No. 2/95-CE. However, the Tribunal referred to precedents and held that duty should be computed based on 50% of each of the customs duties, not on the aggregated duties of customs. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the demands raised in the show-cause notice did not stand, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. 3. Entitlement to concessional rate of duty: The appellant argued that if not eligible for the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 2/95-CE, they should be entitled to exemption under Notification No. 125/84-CE which exempts goods manufactured in 100% EOU from excise duty if not allowed to be sold in India. However, the Tribunal's ruling in favor of the appellant under Notification No. 2/95-CE made the consideration of exemption under Notification No. 125/84-CE unnecessary. 4. Bunching of products under DTA sale: The issue of bunching of products under DTA sale was clarified by the Development Commissioner's office, stating that DTA sale entitlement is determined in totality, allowing the sale of all products specified in the LOP without separate permission for each item. This clarification played a crucial role in determining the appellant's entitlement to the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 2/95-CE. The Tribunal's decision was based on this clarification and previous rulings on duty computation, ultimately allowing the appeal and providing any consequential relief deemed necessary.
|
