9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 789 - AT - Central Excise100% EOU - Determination of Rate of duty where goods have been manufactured wholly from the raw material produced or manufactured in India - Supplier has availed deemed export benefit in respect of this supplies under para 8.3 (a) & (b) of the EXIM Policy - DTA clearances of polyester or polyester cotton blended spun yarn made out of PSF - Exemption Notification No. 23/2003-C.E., dated 31-3-2003 - Held that - the terms imported goods cannot be treated as synonymous with goods not produced or manufactured in India . The goods imported into India can be the ones which had been produced or manufactured in India. Moreover in this case, there is no dispute that the PSF supplied by M/s. Indo Rama to the Appellant Company had been manufactured by them. Just because M/s. Indo Rama availed deemed export benefits under para 8.3(a) & 8.3(b) of the EXIM Policy in respect of PSF manufactured and supplied by them to the Appellant Company, the PSF supplied to the Appellant Company will not cease to be manufactured in India. There is no provision in the notification that the goods received as deemed exports are to be treated as goods not produced or manufactured in India - Appellant have a strong prima facie case in their favour and the requirement of pre-deposit will cause undue hardship - Stay granted.
Issues Involved:
Interpretation of exemption Notification No. 23/2003-C.E. for duty rate on DTA clearances of spun yarn made from PSF procured under deemed export benefit. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: The dispute revolves around the rate of duty on DTA clearances as per exemption Notification No. 23/2003-C.E. The Appellant argues they are covered under Sl. No. 3 of the notification since the goods were manufactured from raw material produced in India. However, the Department contends that PSF procured under deemed export benefit is deemed imported goods, thus attracting a different duty rate under Sl. No. 2 of the notification. Issue 2: The Commissioner, in the order-in-original, confirmed the duty demand against the Appellant Company, imposed penalties, and adjudicated the case. The appeal challenges this order, seeking waiver of pre-deposit due to a strong prima facie case. The Appellants argue that the PSF procured from M/s. Indo Rama is manufactured in India, and the notification does not categorically deem deemed export goods as non-Indian. Issue 3: The Appellants assert that the PSF supplied by M/s. Indo Rama, despite availing deemed export benefits, remains manufactured in India. The Tribunal concurs, stating that the terms "imported goods" and "not manufactured in India" are not synonymous. The Tribunal finds that the Appellant has a strong prima facie case, and pre-deposit would cause undue hardship, thus waiving the requirement for pre-deposit and staying the recovery until the appeal's disposal. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of the exemption notification regarding duty rates on DTA clearances involving PSF procured under deemed export benefits. The Tribunal emphasizes that goods procured under deemed export benefits can still be considered manufactured in India, rejecting the Department's argument that such goods are automatically deemed imported. The Tribunal grants the appeal, waiving the pre-deposit requirement due to the Appellant's strong case and financial hardships, thereby staying the recovery until the appeal's final resolution.
|
