9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 687 - AT - CustomsWaiver from pre-deposit - Stay of recovery - Exemption under Notification No. 34/2006 - Held that - Notification No. 34/2006 grants exemption to goods cleared under SFIS subject to the condition that the duty is debited in the SFIS certificate issued to the recipient by the competent authority. In other words what is exempt is only payment of duty in cash. The duty liability has to be discharged by debiting in the SFIS certificate - clearances under Notification No. 34/2006 cannot be equated with exempted goods. Thus, prima facie, we find that the appellant has made out a strong case in their favour for waiver of pre-deposit of the dues adjudged - Stay granted.
Issues involved:
Interpretation of Notification No. 34/2006 granting exemption under SFIS scheme for goods cleared to DTA, applicability of duty on raw materials procured duty-free, whether clearances under Notification No. 34/2006 are exempted, and whether the appellant has a strong case for waiver of pre-deposit of dues adjudged. Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 34/2006 The appellant contended that the SFIS scheme under the Foreign Trade Policy is an export promotion scheme, and clearances to DTA under this scheme are deemed exports. They argued that goods cleared under Notification No. 34/2006 are not exempted per se, as the duty is debited in the SFIS certificate issued by the competent authority. The appellant relied on previous tribunal decisions to support their interpretation. The Tribunal found that the duty exemption under Notification No. 34/2006 is subject to the condition that duty is debited in the SFIS certificate, indicating that only payment of duty in cash is exempted. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument that clearances under this notification cannot be equated with exempted goods, supporting their contention. Issue 2: Applicability of duty on raw materials procured duty-free The department contended that the appellant, a 100% EOU, procured raw materials duty-free under specific notifications but did not discharge any duty on clearances made to DTA under SFIS. The lower appellate authority confirmed duty demand on the inputs used in manufacturing goods cleared to DTA under SFIS, imposing penalties accordingly. The Tribunal noted the department's argument and upheld the duty demand based on the appellant's failure to pay duty on clearances to DTA under SFIS, despite procuring raw materials duty-free under relevant notifications. Issue 3: Whether clearances under Notification No. 34/2006 are exempted The lower appellate authority held that Notification No. 34/2006 is an exemption notification under the Central Excise Act, and duty is demandable on inputs used in clearances to DTA under SFIS. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that clearances under this notification are not exempted but subject to duty debited in the SFIS certificate. The Tribunal analyzed previous decisions and found that clearances under Notification No. 34/2006 are not equivalent to exempted goods, supporting the appellant's contention. Issue 4: Strong case for waiver of pre-deposit of dues adjudged The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit of dues adjudged, citing a strong case on merits based on their interpretation of Notification No. 34/2006 and previous tribunal decisions. The Tribunal agreed that the appellant had made out a strong case for waiver of pre-deposit of the dues adjudged, granting unconditional waiver and staying recovery during the appeal's pendency. In conclusion, the Tribunal interpreted Notification No. 34/2006, upheld duty demand on raw materials procured duty-free, clarified that clearances under this notification are not exempted goods, and granted the appellant waiver of pre-deposit of dues adjudged based on a strong case presented.
|
