2017 (9) TMI 780 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - clearance to DTA - exemption under N/N. 51/96-Cus. dt. 23.7.96 - valuation - quantification of 50% of FOB value for DTA clearance - Held that - the jurisdictional Commissioner in the appellant-assessee s own case, for earlier period, allowed DTA clearance based on the quantification fixed by the Development Commissioner - In the present case, the permission granted by the Development Commissioner has not been contested or varied. Revenue also held a view that some of the goods cleared by the appellant-assessee to DTA are not similar to the goods which are exported by them - Held that - It would appear that the goods cleared by the appellant-assessee to DTA though may broadly fall under the category of optical components, they are not fit to be used as such without further work. In the appeal, Revenue did not bring out any evidence to support their claim that these are not at all optical items or components but are simple glasses - no case is made out by Revenue against the impugned order on this ground. Eligibility of Night Vision Binocular for clearance to DTA - Held that - appellant says that they do have specific permission dt. 27.11.98 from the Development Commissioner for clearance of specific number of Night Vision Binoculars to DTA. As such, we find no merit in the appeal by the Revenue on this issue also. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty liability of the appellant-assessee for clearances of final products to DTA.
2. Quantification of 50% of FOB value for DTA clearance.
3. Goods cleared by the appellant-assessee to DTA not being similar to exported goods.
4. Eligibility of Night Vision Binocular for clearance to DTA.

Analysis:
1. The appellant-assessee, a 100% EOU manufacturing optical instruments, imported raw materials duty-free under Notification No.52/2003-Cus. and procured indigenous goods duty-free under Notification No.22/2003-CE. Dispute arose on duty liability for clearances to DTA. The appellant argued against paying back duty under Notification No.53/97-Cus. as their products were excisable but exempt under Notification No.51/96-Cus. The Tribunal found no violation as the products were excisable but exempt, allowing the appeal.

2. Revenue challenged the quantification of 50% of FOB value for DTA clearance, citing differences from a previous case. The Tribunal upheld the original authority's decision based on the Development Commissioner's permission, which was not contested or varied. The Revenue's submission lacked merit as the quantification had been approved previously, dismissing the appeal.

3. Revenue claimed that cover and cuvetter glasses cleared to DTA were dissimilar to exported goods. The original authority, supported by IIT Madras advice, deemed them optical components. The Tribunal found no evidence to support Revenue's claim that the goods were simple glasses, upholding the original authority's decision.

4. Revenue questioned the eligibility of Night Vision Binocular for DTA clearance. The appellant provided specific permission from the Development Commissioner, rendering the Revenue's appeal meritless. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, allowing the appellant's appeal with consequential relief.