2015 (10) TMI 445 - SC - Central Excise

Whether the goods cleared by the respondent in DTA in terms of paragraph 9.10 (b) of the EXIM Policy 2002-2007 with the permission of the Development Commissioner and against the payment in foreign exchange could be treated as export and, therefore, not liable to duty under the provisions of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by virtue of Notification No. 8/1997 - Held that - question is answered in favour of the assessee by another judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I v. Favourite Industries 2012 (4) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of goods cleared under EXIM Policy 2002-2007 as "export" for exemption from duty under Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Treatment of goods/raw material purchased from another EoU as indigenously procured.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of goods under EXIM Policy for duty exemption
The main issue in the present civil appeal was whether goods cleared by the respondent under the EXIM Policy 2002-2007 could be considered as "export" and thus exempt from duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by virtue of Notification No. 8/1997. The Court noted that this issue had already been settled in favor of the assessee in the case of 'Virlon Textile Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai [2007 (211) ELT 353]'. The judgment in the mentioned case established the precedent that goods cleared under the specified conditions of the EXIM Policy could indeed be treated as exports for the purpose of duty exemption.

Issue 2: Treatment of goods/raw material purchased from another EoU
Another issue raised was whether the purchase of goods/raw material from another Export Oriented Unit (EoU) could be considered as indigenously procured. This question was addressed and resolved in favor of the assessee by another judgment of the Court in the case of 'Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I v. Favourite Industries' [2012 (278) ELT 145]. The judgment in this case clarified that such purchases from other EoUs would not be treated as indigenously procured, thereby supporting the assessee's position.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeals, including Civil Appeal No. 2621 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 2892 of 2006, and Civil Appeal No. 9734 of 2011, based on the established legal precedents and rulings in favor of the assessee regarding the classification of goods under the EXIM Policy for duty exemption and the treatment of goods/raw material purchased from other EoUs.