9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1566 - AT - Central Excise100% EOU - duty free raw material procured in terms of Notification No.52/2003-Cus dated 31 March, 2003 - denial of benefit on the ground that goods are cleared in DTA without payment of duty - HELD THAT - The Revenue is not disputing the fact that the import of raw material could have taken place under the cover of other two Notification No.24/2005-Cus and 12/2012-CE. The Adjudicating Authority, before extending the benefit of the said two notifications to the respondents have referred to and relied upon the various decisions of the higher courts to hold that alternative pleas raised by an assessee are required to be considered. It is well settled law that if the benefit of the notifications is otherwise available to a assessee, even though not claimed at a time of the import of the goods, the benefit cannot be denied. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Appeal against the order vacating show cause notice proposing demand confirmation. 2. Interpretation of Notification No.52/2003-Cus and 22/2003-CE regarding duty-free raw material procurement. 3. Adjudication on the benefit of Notification No.24/2005-Cus and 12/2012-CE. 4. Consideration of alternative exemption notifications. 5. Dispute over the timing of claiming benefit under different notifications. 6. Application of legal precedents regarding alternative exemption notifications. Issue 1: Appeal against the order vacating show cause notice: The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida, which vacated the show cause notice proposing the confirmation of demand against the respondents. The appeal was heard by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD. Issue 2: Interpretation of duty-free raw material procurement notifications: The respondents, engaged in manufacturing 'Photovoltaic Solar Cells,' were a 100% export-oriented unit procuring duty-free raw materials under Notification No.52/2003-Cus and indigenous raw materials under Notification No.22/2003-CE. The issue arose when the Anti-evasion Officers found the unit clearing goods in DTA without payment of duty, leading to proceedings seeking denial of notification benefits and demand confirmation. Issue 3: Adjudication on benefit of alternative notifications: The Adjudicating Authority favored the assessee, extending the benefit of Notification No.24/2005-Cus and 12/2012-CE to them, stating that the raw material was liable to nil duty under these notifications. The Authority highlighted the eligibility of the party for these alternative benefits due to CBEC instructions and Board clarifications. Issue 4: Consideration of alternative exemption notifications: The Authority referred to legal precedents, including the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise Baroda v/s Indian Petro Chemicals, emphasizing that an assessee is entitled to the more beneficial notification when two alternatives are available. The Authority relied on various cases to support the application of this principle. Issue 5: Timing of claiming benefit under different notifications: The Revenue contended that the respondents had not initially claimed the benefit of the alternative notifications, questioning the validity of a subsequent claim. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that if the benefit was available to the assessee, it cannot be denied even if not initially claimed. Issue 6: Application of legal precedents on alternative exemptions: The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, emphasizing that alternative pleas raised by an assessee must be considered. It reiterated the principle that if the benefit of notifications is available to an assessee, it cannot be denied, even if not claimed at the time of import. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the extension of benefits under alternative notifications to the respondents based on legal principles and precedents.
|
