9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 922 - AT - Central Excise100% EOU - Demand of SAD on account of clearance to other units located in DTA by way of stock transfer - Benefit of exemption from levy of SAD leviable under Section 3(3) of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 - Interest u/s 11AB - Held that - it is admitted position that the goods are not exempted from the Sales tax in the DTA to which they have been cleared from EOU unit of the appellant. Thus, we hold that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of exemption from levy of SAD leviable under Section 3(3) of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 in view of the specific exemption granted under Notification NO. 23/2003-CE, as amended - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Levy of Central Excise duty including Special Additional Duty (SAD) on stock transfers from EOU to DTA. 2. Interpretation of exemption from Sales Tax/VAT in the context of stock transfers. 3. Applicability of Notification No. 23/2003-CE and Notification No. 20/2006-Cus. 4. Imposition of interest and penalty under relevant sections of the Central Excise Act and Rules. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Levy of Central Excise Duty including SAD on Stock Transfers from EOU to DTA: The appellant, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), was subjected to Central Excise duty including SAD on clearances made to its Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) units via stock transfers. The duty was confirmed under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with interest under Section 11AB and penalties under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant argued that since these transfers were not sales, Sales Tax/VAT was not applicable, and thus, SAD should not be levied. 2. Interpretation of Exemption from Sales Tax/VAT in the Context of Stock Transfers: The Revenue issued show-cause notices based on the premise that non-payment of Sales Tax/VAT on stock transfers amounted to an exemption, thereby attracting SAD. The appellant contended that the non-levy of Sales Tax/VAT on stock transfers was due to the absence of a sale transaction, not because of an exemption granted by the State Government. The Commissioner upheld the demand, interpreting that the term "exempt" in the notification included both general and conditional exemptions. 3. Applicability of Notification No. 23/2003-CE and Notification No. 20/2006-Cus: The appellant relied on Notification No. 23/2003-CE, which exempts goods cleared from an EOU to DTA from SAD if not exempted from Sales Tax/VAT by the State Government. They argued that since Sales Tax/VAT was not levied due to the nature of stock transfers (not being sales), the exemption from SAD should apply. The appellant cited various legal precedents to support their interpretation that non-levy due to absence of sale is different from an exemption. 4. Imposition of Interest and Penalty: The appellant challenged the imposition of interest and penalties, arguing that there was no deliberate evasion of duty and that their interpretation of the law was reasonable. They cited rulings where similar interpretations were upheld, emphasizing that stock transfers do not constitute sales and thus should not attract Sales Tax/VAT or SAD. Tribunal's Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the goods in question were not exempt from Sales Tax/VAT by the State Government, and the non-levy was due to the nature of stock transfers. The Tribunal distinguished the case from the ruling in Moser Baer India Ltd., where goods were exempt from Sales Tax. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of exemption from SAD under Notification No. 23/2003-CE, as amended. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any. Final Judgment: The appeal was allowed, exempting the appellant from the levy of SAD on stock transfers from EOU to DTA, and providing consequential relief. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between non-levy due to the absence of sale and exemption granted by the State Government.
|
