9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 472 - AT - Central ExciseBenefit of N/N. 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 - Department was of the view that since the CVD is debited in the DEPB scrip, there is no payment of duty on the imported goods and therefore appellant is not eligible for exemption under Sl.No. 244 (C) of Notification No. 6/2002 - whether the central excise duty exemption under Notification No. 6/2002 dated 01.03.2002 (Sl.No. 244 (C) is eligible for RBD Palmolein oil when the RBD Polmolein oil is imported on debit of DEPB scrip? Held that - issue stands decided in the cases of Tanfac Industries Ltd. 2009 (4) TMI 92 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where in the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that the debit of any amount under the DEPB Scheme is a mode of payment of duty on the imported goods and the goods cleared under DEPB Scheme cannot be treated an exempted goods, but they can only be treated to be duty-paid goods. Demand do not sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Whether the central excise duty exemption under Notification No. 6/2002 is applicable to imported RBD Palmolein oil when the oil is imported on debit of DEPB scrip. Analysis: The case involved the appellant, engaged in the manufacture of refined edible oil, availing benefits under Notification No. 6/2002-CE for their finished products. The issue arose when the department alleged that since the RBD Palmolein oils were imported under a DEPB scheme claiming exemption, the appellant was not eligible for the duty exemption as the inputs did not suffer the appropriate duty. The department issued a show cause notice for duty demand, interest, and penalties. The original authority confirmed the duty demand and penalties, leading the appellant to appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant argued that the debit of DEPB scrip amounts to payment of duty, satisfying the conditions for availing benefits under Notification No. 6/2002. They relied on legal precedents where similar modes of duty payment were considered valid. The appellant highlighted Circular No. 26/2007-Cus., which clarified that goods cleared by debits through DEPBs are to be treated as duty-paid goods, allowing for Cenvat Credit/Drawback. The appellant contended that the discharge of duty liability on the imported RBD Palmolein made them eligible for the exemption. The department, represented by the Ld. AR, reiterated the findings of the impugned order, maintaining that the duty exemption was not applicable in this case. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, analyzed the legal position and referred to the case law of Tanfac Industries Ltd., where it was observed that duty paid through debits under DEPB should be treated as payment of duty, not as an exemption. The Tribunal concluded that the demand could not be sustained, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs as per law. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the appellant was eligible for the central excise duty exemption under Notification No. 6/2002 for the imported RBD Palmolein oil, as the debit of DEPB scrip was considered a valid mode of duty payment. The decision was based on legal precedents and circulars clarifying the treatment of goods cleared through DEPBs. The Tribunal's ruling provided relief to the appellant, overturning the duty demand and penalties imposed by the department.
|
