2023 (8) TMI 789 - AT - Central Excise

Extended period of limitation - concessional rate of duty on the scrap cleared - HELD THAT - The appellant s case is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in their own case for the past period M/S MENETA AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., SHRI PRAVEEN GARG, AUTHORISED SIGNATORY VERSUS CCE ST, ROHTAK 2015 (4) TMI 733 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and by the decision of the Commissioner in the subsequent period. Learned Commissioner vide OIO dated 23.11.2016 had categorically mentioned that the aforesaid decision of the Hon ble Tribunal has attained its finality as the worthy Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi vide their office letter C.No. CCO(OZ)CXJ116/Meneta/CESTAT/ Review/ 2015 dated 03.11.2015 has accorded concurrence on the proposal of acceptance of Hon ble CESTAT Final Order in M/S MENETA AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., SHRI PRAVEEN GARG, AUTHORISED SIGNATORY VERSUS CCE ST, ROHTAK 2015 (4) TMI 733 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . The impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the entitlement of concessional rate of duty on scrap cleared by an EOU into DTA, calculation of duty payable, invoking of extended period, denial of basic customs duty exemption, and exemption from Central Excise Duty equivalent to Special Additional Customs Duty.

Entitlement of Concessional Rate of Duty:
The appellant, an EOU, cleared scrap into DTA under Para 6.8 (e) of Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 without fixed SION. The Department demanded Excise Duty alleging ineligibility for FTP benefit. The appellant relied on past Tribunal decisions and Commissioner's favorable rulings for the period in question. The Tribunal found the appellant's case covered by previous decisions, emphasizing finality of Tribunal and Commissioner decisions in favor of the appellant.

Calculation of Duty Payable:
The appellant argued against the duty calculation method used by the Commissioner, citing precedents like Sarla Performance Fibres Ltd. and Commissioner Vs Meghmani Dyes & Intermediates Ltd. The appellant contended that the extended period invoked in subsequent show-cause notices was impermissible, referring to Nizam Sugar Factory case.

Denial of Basic Customs Duty Exemption:
The Tribunal, referencing Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., clarified that the duty payable on DTA clearances should consider the Basic Customs Duty rate applicable to like imported goods, even if exempt from Basic Customs Duty. The Tribunal held that denial of exemption based on scrap nature was unsustainable, emphasizing the use of scrap for making Iron and Steel products.

Exemption from Central Excise Duty Equivalent to SAD:
Regarding exemption from Central Excise Duty equivalent to Special Additional Customs Duty (SAD), the Department's contention on non-applicability of exemption Notification No. 23/2003-C.E. was rejected. The Tribunal found that VAT payment and satisfaction of conditions under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. for DTA clearances of a 100% EOU warranted full exemption from SAD.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant on all grounds. The appeal was allowed based on the Tribunal's analysis and interpretation of relevant laws and notifications, providing relief to the appellant in the matter of duty calculation and exemptions.