9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 115 - AT - Central ExciseExemption notification No. 23/03 and 22/03 - EOU - clearance of DTA - Held that - Notification exempt the goods when brought in connection with manufacture and packaging or production into EOU, it relates to the procurement of inputs, raw materials and capital goods for manufacture of finished goods by the EOU. Therefore, notification referred both in the show cause notice and in the impugned order not related to EOU clearance of finished goods into DTA market and not relevant to the payment of duty on the goods cleared by EOU to DTA. - Bench considered Notification No. 23/03-C.E. as well. It also took into account the Development Commissioner s clarification which was to the effect that the resins used by EOUs in the polishing of granite blocks were only consumables. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the co-ordinate Bench. Accordingly, it is held that the appellants did not use any imported raw material in the manufacture of polished granite slabs during the material period and hence were eligible for the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 23/03-C.E. ibid. The demand of duty is not sustainable. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Interpretation of exemption notifications under Central Excise Act for EOU clearance of finished goods into DTA market. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai involved the interpretation of exemption notifications under the Central Excise Act for the clearance of finished goods by an Export Oriented Unit (EOU) into the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) market. The Tribunal noted that in a previous case concerning a similar issue, the Tribunal had allowed the appeal on DTA clearance under Notification No. 23/2003-CE for a specific period. In the present case, the demand covered a different period, and the duty was demanded under a different notification, i.e., Notification No. 22/2003-CE. The appellant argued that the duty demand was incorrect as it should have been under Notification No. 23/2003-CE, which was applicable to EOUs for clearance of DTA under specific conditions. Upon reviewing the exemption notifications, the Tribunal found that the appellant, being an EOU for DTA clearance, was covered under Notification No. 23/2003-CE. The main contention was that while the duty was demanded under Notification No. 22/2003-CE, the relevant notification for EOU clearance was No. 23/2003-CE. The Tribunal highlighted that Notification No. 22/2003-CE related to the exemption of goods brought in connection with manufacturing and packaging for export by EOUs, not for clearance of finished goods into the DTA market. Therefore, the duty demand under Notification No. 22/2003-CE was not relevant to the EOU clearance of finished goods into the DTA market. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the appellant's own case where a similar issue was addressed. In that case, it was held that the appellant did not use imported raw materials in the manufacture of polished granite slabs and was eligible for the benefit of concessional duty under Notification No. 23/2003-CE. The Tribunal agreed with the previous decision and concluded that the demand of duty in the present case was not sustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the previous decision and the interpretation of the relevant exemption notifications. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the applicability of specific exemption notifications under the Central Excise Act for EOUs involved in the clearance of finished goods into the DTA market. By analyzing the provisions of the notifications and previous decisions, the Tribunal determined that the duty demand under the incorrect notification was not valid, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal.
|
