2009 (6) TMI 313 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant is a 100% E.O.U. and manufacture yarn and clear them mainly for export and the quantity permitted by the Development Commissioner into DTA - There is no dispute before us that the clearances made by the appellants is beyond the limit prescribed by the Development Commissioner. - the appellant have chosen to supply to special category of buyers covered under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules 2002. We agree with the submission of the learned Advocate that Rule 19 does not exclude the clearances from 100% E.O.U. from its purview. The decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Kurt-O-John Shoe Components (I) Ltd. reported in 2003 (154) E.L.T. 651 (Tri.-Del.) and in the case of Paras Fab International v. CCE Jaipur reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T. 549 (Tri.-Del.) support the contention of the learned Advocate. It cannot be said that appellant cannot avail the benefit under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules

Summary

Issues:
- Whether a 100% E.O.U. can avail the benefit under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules for clearances made to DTA.
- Interpretation of Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in relation to clearances from 100% E.O.U.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner dated 17-6-2004, concerning a 100% E.O.U. that manufactures yarn mainly for export and clears them for export or into DTA. The appellant claimed to have supplied permitted quantities as inputs to manufacturers of excisable goods for export, supported by CT-2 certificates. The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) held that as a 100% E.O.U., they cannot avail the benefit under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

2. The appellant argued that as a 100% E.O.U., their clearances to DTA were within the permissible limit under the EXIM Policy, and Rule 19 does not exclude them. They relied on Tribunal decisions in similar cases to support their claim that Rule 19 applies to clearances made from 100% E.O.U. The learned Advocate cited precedents such as Kurt-O-John Shoe Components (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex & Cus. and Paras Fab International v. CCE, Jaipur, to strengthen their argument.

3. The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the clearances made by the appellant exceeded the limit set by the Development Commissioner. However, the appellant chose to supply to a special category of buyers covered under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention that Rule 19 does not exclude clearances from 100% E.O.U. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions to support this interpretation.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant. The judgment emphasized that Rule 19 does not preclude clearances from 100% E.O.U. and supported this conclusion with relevant precedents and legal interpretations.