9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 380 - AT - Central Excise100% EOU - benefit of N/N. 1/95-CE dated 4-1-1995 - appellant procured some input under N/N. 1/95-CE dated 4-1-1995 and the same was used in the manufacture of goods on job work basis on the material supplied by M/s Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd (M/s. TISCO) and cleared the processed goods on payment of duty to M/s. TISCO - case of the department is that the clearances made to M/s. TISCO is not sale therefore the same is not permissible under DTA sale by an 100% EOU - Held that - in the respondent s own case, the tribunal has decided the matter in favor of the respondent which was reported as Universal Ferro & Allied Chelnicals Ltd Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. Nagpur 2005 (10) TMI 539 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that The benefit of clearance at the rates applicable under N/N. 8/97 in this case as claimed by the appellants cannot be denied as there is no finding or an allegation of use of any duty free imported raw material having been utilized in the manufacture of Silicon Manganese by the appellants - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
- Interpretation of Notification No. 1/95-CE for 100% EOU - Nature of processing done by EOU for DTA sales - Application of excise duty on manufactured goods - Compliance with EXIM Policy for DTA sales - Applicability of duty under Section 3(1) of Central Excise Act - Denial of duty demands and confiscation liabilities - Penalty imposition on Chairman Interpretation of Notification No. 1/95-CE for 100% EOU: The case involved the appellant, a 100% EOU, procuring inputs under Notification No. 1/95-CE and using them in manufacturing goods on a job work basis for M/s Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd (TISCO). The department contended that clearances to TISCO were not sales, thus not permissible under DTA sale by an EOU, leading to a demand for duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal based on a previous order upheld by the Tribunal, which the Revenue challenged. Nature of processing done by EOU for DTA sales: The Tribunal analyzed the previous order involving Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals Ltd, emphasizing that the processing done by the EOU resulted in the emergence of a new commercial product, Silicon Manganese, constituting manufacturing rather than job work. The Tribunal rejected the Commissioner's findings that the clearances were merely return of goods after job work, affirming that the EOU was a manufacturer of Silicon Manganese for DTA sales, in compliance with the EXIM Policy. Application of excise duty on manufactured goods: The Tribunal referenced legal provisions and precedents to establish that the EOU's activities amounted to manufacturing, justifying the levy of duty on the goods cleared. It dismissed the Revenue's contentions regarding the misutilization of Notification No. 1/95-CE and upheld the Commissioner's decision on the nature of the EOU's operations. Compliance with EXIM Policy for DTA sales: The Tribunal scrutinized the Commissioner's interpretation of the EXIM Policy regarding DTA sales, emphasizing that the EOU's manufacturing activities for DTA clearance were permissible under the policy. It rejected the Revenue's arguments against the clearance under the EXIM Policy, affirming the legality of the EOU's actions. Applicability of duty under Section 3(1) of Central Excise Act: The Tribunal clarified the duty applicability under Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing that the duty demands on the EOU for goods cleared to DTA were valid, rejecting the Revenue's assertions to the contrary based on Circulars and Customs Act provisions. Denial of duty demands and confiscation liabilities: The Tribunal set aside the duty demands and confiscation liabilities imposed on the EOU, citing legal precedents and interpretations to support its decision. It emphasized that since no duty demands were valid, interest, penalty, and confiscation liabilities were not applicable. Penalty imposition on Chairman: The Tribunal ruled that in the absence of upheld duty demands and confiscation liabilities, the penalty on the Chairman of the EOU was unjustified. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and affirming the legality of the EOU's actions. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upheld the Commissioner's decision, and allowed the name change of the respondent's company due to amalgamation.
|
