2007 (10) TMI 281 - AT - Customs

Deemed exports to other EOU as raw materials for further manufacture for export - whether the deemed exports has to be included for the purpose of determining entitlement in the DTA - hold that the clearances made by the respondent are clearly within the permissible limit of DTA sales as permitted by the Development Commissioner - raw materials were admittedly issued for manufacture in the 100% EOU and no raw materials as such has been diverted and hence demand of duty on the raw materials is not sustainable - demand on the raw materials which have gone into manufacture of finished products/wastes and rejects, sold in DTA, is not justified

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term "exports" and its application to deemed exports.
2. Determination of entitlement in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) sales.
3. Liability of duty on raw materials used in the manufacturing process for deemed exports.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the interpretation of the term "exports" concerning physical exports and deemed exports. The Revenue Department contended that deemed exports cannot be equated with physical exports, leading to a dispute over the inclusion of deemed exports in determining entitlement in DTA sales. The Tribunal, citing previous decisions, held in favor of the assessee, stating that deemed exports should be considered within the permissible limit of DTA sales as permitted by the Development Commissioner. This decision aligns with previous rulings and establishes the validity of the respondent's clearances within the approved limits.

2. The dispute regarding entitlement in DTA sales was crucial in this case. The Development Commissioner had allowed DTA sales up to 50% of the FOB value of exports, including goods cleared to 100% EOUs. The Revenue Department challenged this by considering only physical exports for the calculation and demanded duty due to the perceived excess in DTA sales. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, emphasizing that the clearances made fell within the permissible limit set by the Development Commissioner. This decision reaffirmed the validity of the respondent's actions in line with the applicable regulations.

3. The liability of duty on raw materials used in the manufacturing process for deemed exports was another significant aspect of the case. The Tribunal noted that the raw materials were issued for manufacturing in the 100% EOU without diversion, leading to the conclusion that demanding duty on the raw materials was not sustainable. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision not to impose duty on the raw materials used in the production of finished products, rejects, and wastes sold in the DTA with the Development Commissioner's permission. This analysis highlighted the legality of the manufacturing process and the proper utilization of raw materials within the approved framework.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the disputes surrounding the interpretation of "exports," entitlement in DTA sales, and the duty liability on raw materials for deemed exports. By upholding the validity of the respondent's actions based on regulations and previous decisions, the Tribunal provided a comprehensive analysis ensuring adherence to legal principles and regulatory frameworks.