2015 (10) TMI 196 - AT - Customs

Non-fulfilment of obligation as per notification Appellant procured indigenous goods for production of shrimps and also imported raw materials and capital goods Taking view that appellant had not fulfilled obligation as per notification and sales made to other EOUs/ job work entrusted to other EOUs cannot be considered as exports therefore proceedings were initiated Held that - Supreme Court in case NCC Blue Water Products 2010 (9) TMI 13 - Supreme Court of India took view that even if indigenous raw materials have been procured under Notification No.8/97, when tariff rate itself is nil , rate of duty applicable would be in terms of Section 3(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and it is not necessary to go to proviso at all Further it was also submitted during course of hearing that exports were made in name of appellants only View has also been taken that clearances to EOUs cannot be considered as exports which again is contrary to provisions of law Once order is set aside, it is non est and further there is no indication in Commissioner s order that submissions relating to exports made and in respect of raw materials imported after 2000 have been dealt with in earlier order In such situation, we consider that Commissioner should consider matter once again and therefore remand matter with request to reexamine all matters afresh Therefore impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to original adjudicating authority Decided partly in favour of Assesse.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of Notification No.8/97-CE regarding duty on goods cleared to DTA.
2. Consideration of sales to other EOUs/job work as exports.
3. Examination of fulfillment of export obligations by the appellant.
4. Rejection of claim on imported raw materials for processing and export.
5. Correct legal position on clearances made from job workers' premises.
6. Commissioner's incorrect assumption regarding Tribunal's direction on Notification No.8/97.
7. Need for reexamination of all matters and precedent decisions.

Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No.8/97-CE:
The Tribunal found that the demand of duty on shrimp seeds cleared to DTA needed reconsideration under Notification No.8/97-CE. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh adjudication by the Adjudicating Authority, emphasizing the need to consider the benefit of the notification and the requirement for Central Excise duty on goods manufactured from indigenous inputs. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Adjudicating Authority to dispose of the matter promptly.

Issue 2: Consideration of sales to other EOUs/job work:
The Tribunal addressed the appellant's sales to other EOUs/job work, stating that such transactions cannot automatically be considered as exports. The matter was remanded for a relook by the Adjudicating Authority to ensure compliance with export conditions, emphasizing the importance of a fair hearing and timely resolution.

Issue 3: Examination of export obligations fulfillment:
The appellant argued that they had fulfilled export obligations as per requirements, supported by certification from the Development Commissioner. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the Commissioner's findings and directed a reexamination of the issue, stressing the need for a comprehensive review of all submissions and factual aspects.

Issue 4: Rejection of claim on imported raw materials:
The rejection of the appellant's claim on imported raw materials for processing and export was deemed premature by the Tribunal. The matter required detailed examination, especially regarding clearances made from job workers' premises and the legal implications of such transactions. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity to consider all aspects before reaching a legally correct solution.

Issue 5: Correct legal position on clearances from job workers' premises:
The Tribunal emphasized the need to determine the correct legal position on clearances made from job workers' premises for exports. It pointed out the contradiction in the Commissioner's decision and directed a thorough review to ensure compliance with legal provisions and precedents.

Issue 6: Commissioner's incorrect assumption on Tribunal's direction:
The Tribunal clarified that the Commissioner's assumption of being directed to examine only the applicability of Notification No.8/97 was incorrect. It highlighted the non est nature of the set-aside order and stressed the importance of considering all submissions and precedent decisions afresh for a legally sound resolution.

Issue 7: Reexamination of all matters and precedent decisions:
In light of the Commissioner's flawed approach and incomplete consideration of submissions, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for a comprehensive reexamination. It emphasized the necessity for a legally correct solution, considering all aspects and ensuring the appellant's cooperation without unnecessary delays.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bengaluru highlights the critical issues addressed, the Tribunal's directions for reexamination, and the legal intricacies involved in the case.