2015 (10) TMI 916 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of exemption claim - Whether the respondent a100% EOU at the material time, are required to pay NCCD @ ₹ 50/- per MT under Section 134 of Finance Act 2003, at the time of importation of the Crude Oil on the ground that the said NCCD has not been exempted by Notification No. 52/2003 dtd 31.3.2003 - Held that - Case is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the respondent s own case 2011 (3) TMI 833 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD . In view of that, we do find any reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeal). - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether a 100% EOU is required to pay NCCD @ Rs. 50 per MT under Section 134 of Finance Act 2003 at the time of importation of Crude Oil as the said NCCD has not been exempted by Notification No. 52/2003 dated 31.3.2003.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of whether a 100% EOU is obligated to pay NCCD during the importation of Crude Oil. The Commissioner (Appeal) set aside the adjudication order based on the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Paras Fab International. The Revenue challenged this decision, citing a pending challenge to the Larger Bench's ruling. However, the Tribunal, in the case of CC, Jamnagar Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, rejected the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that as per the Larger Bench decision, 100% EOU premises are considered as a warehouse, and goods used for manufacturing in-bond within these premises are not deemed to have been removed for home consumption, hence no duty is required to be paid. The Tribunal highlighted that any payment of duty "Under Protest" at the time of filing a bill of entry for the warehouse does not alter the legal position that a 100% EOU is only obligated to pay duty upon clearance of warehoused goods for home consumption. The Tribunal upheld the decision that 100% EOU is not liable to pay NCCD, Education Cess, and SHE Cess. The Tribunal emphasized that to rule contrary to the Larger Bench's decision would be impermissible, and they found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeal)'s order, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the duty obligations of a 100% EOU during the importation of goods and highlights the significance of the Larger Bench's decision in determining such obligations. The Tribunal's analysis underscores the legal position that 100% EOU premises are akin to warehouses, and goods used for manufacturing in-bond within these premises do not attract duty liabilities until clearance for home consumption. The judgment provides a detailed interpretation of relevant provisions under the Customs Act and emphasizes the policy objectives behind the EOU scheme to facilitate duty-free material for manufacturing export goods.