9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 603 - AT - Customs100% EOU - HSD had been procured from M/s. ESSAR Oils who had imported the same and cleared the same for warehousing. - Denial of exemption claim - Demand of differential duty - Levy of additional duty of customs - Invocation of larger period of limitation - Held that - duty should have been recovered from M/s. ESSAR Oil and not from the respondent - irrespective of whether the additional customs duty leviable under section 116 of the Finance Act, 1994 is recoverable from the respondent or not, the demand is time barred - Issue stands decided in the favour of the respondent by the Tribunal s judgment in the case of STI India Limited Vs. CCE- Indore reported in 2007 (10) TMI 482 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI and also by Larger Bench Judgment in the case of Paras Feb International Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Kandla reported in 2010 (6) TMI 184 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of notifications exempting goods for 100% EOU from duty. 2. Liability of 100% EOU for additional customs duty under the Finance Act. 3. Application of extended limitation period for duty demand. 4. Recovery of duty from importer or 100% EOU. Analysis: 1. The case involved a dispute regarding the duty exemption for goods procured by a 100% EOU for manufacturing. The Revenue contended that the HSD procured by the respondent was not exempt from the additional duty under the Finance Act, 1999. The Commissioner (appeals) set aside the duty demand, stating that it should be recoverable from the importer, M/s. ESSAR Oils, not the respondent. The Tribunal examined the issue and found that the duty exemption notification did not cover the additional duty under the Finance Act, 1999, but the demand from the respondent was time-barred. 2. The Tribunal considered whether the additional customs duty under the Finance Act, 1999 could be recovered from the 100% EOU, who had procured the goods from the importer. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the duty should have been recovered from the importer, M/s. ESSAR Oil, and not from the respondent. The judgment in the case of STI India Limited and the Larger Bench's judgment in the case of Paras Fab International supported this conclusion. 3. Regarding the application of the extended limitation period for duty demand, the Tribunal referred to the case of CCE-Chandigarh Vs. Rana Polycot Ltd. and held that the extended limitation period was not invokable. Therefore, irrespective of the liability of the 100% EOU for additional duty, the demand was time-barred. 4. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the duty should have been recovered from the importer, M/s. ESSAR Oil, and not from the respondent. The cross-objection filed by the respondent was also disposed of accordingly. The judgment clarified the responsibility for duty payment and upheld the decision that the demand from the respondent was not valid.
|
