9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 455 - AT - Central ExciseNCCD u/s 136 of the Finance Act, 2001 - goods cleared to 100% - Partially Oriented Yarn (POY) - Notification No. 46/2003-CE dated 17.05.2003 which exempted goods falling under Chapter No. 54.02 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - whether the appellant is eligible to get exemption of NCCD on goods cleared to 100% EOU? - Held that - the Tribunal held that the issue is no more res integra and followed the decision in the case of Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST 2014 (11) TMI 72 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it was held that POY cleared to 100% EOU is not liable to NCCD. POY cleared for captive consumption - the decision in the case of M/s Chiripal Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ahmedabad 2015 (6) TMI 45 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD relied upon where it was held that POY cleared for captive consumption is not liable to NCCD. Appeal allowed - NCCD not levied - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 46/2003-CE dated 17.05.2003 for Partially Oriented Yarn (POY). 2. Applicability of National Calamity Contingency Duty (NCCD) on POY cleared to 100% Export Oriented Units (EOU). 3. Interpretation of exemption notifications and their applicability to NCCD. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 46/2003-CE dated 17.05.2003 for Partially Oriented Yarn (POY): The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of POY, claimed exemption under Notification No. 46/2003-CE dated 17.05.2003, which exempts goods falling under Chapter 54.02 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Revenue contended that this exemption did not extend to NCCD on POY, even if cleared to 100% EOU. Both lower authorities ruled against the appellant. Issue 2: Applicability of National Calamity Contingency Duty (NCCD) on POY cleared to 100% Export Oriented Units (EOU): The appellant argued that the issue was settled by previous Tribunal decisions, including Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST 2014 (302) ELT 446 (Tri.-Ahmd.) and others, which held that NCCD on POY cleared to 100% EOU is exempt under Notification No. 46/2003-CE. The departmental representative countered that NCCD was applicable on goods cleared for captive consumption and cited the Tribunal's decision in Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut 2011 (273) ELT 89 (Tri.-Del.). The Tribunal, upon reviewing the submissions and previous case laws, found that the issue of NCCD on POY cleared to 100% EOU was indeed settled. The Tribunal referred to the Filatex India Ltd. case, which clarified that NCCD is not leviable on goods exported under bond, as per CBEC Circular No. 641/32/2002-CX dated 26.06.2002. This circular stated that NCCD, being a duty of excise, is not payable on goods exported under bond, aligning with the policy to relieve domestic taxes on exported goods. Issue 3: Interpretation of exemption notifications and their applicability to NCCD: The Tribunal emphasized that exemption notifications should be interpreted based on their wording, as held in various Supreme Court decisions. The Tribunal reiterated that POY cleared to 100% EOU is not liable to NCCD, as established in previous decisions such as Modern Petrofils Ltd. Vs. CCE 2012-TIOL-132-CESTAT-AHM and J.B.F. Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE 2009 (246) ELT 286 (Tri.-Ahmd.). These cases consistently held that NCCD is not leviable on POY cleared for captive consumption or to 100% EOU. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the appellant is not liable to pay NCCD on POY cleared to 100% EOU or for captive consumption, in line with established case law and CBEC circulars. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to the wording of exemption notifications and the principle of relieving domestic taxes on exported goods.
|
