9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to which, the 100% EOU was required to pay only 50% of the aggregate of customs duty leviable on like goods imported and accordingly paid Rs. 18,900/- being 50% of Rs. 37,800/- otherwise payable as CVD component, held that only the said amount of Rs. 18,900/- is available as credit and accordingly, he demanded Rs. 18,900/-. The appellant submits that in terms of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vikram Ispat v. CCE, Mumbai-II - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 800 (Tribunal-Larger Bench), the credit taken by them, being CVD leviable on like goods, was available. 3.2 The above issue is no more res integra as the same has been settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vikram Ispat cited supra with the foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise duty. Had this been the intention of the Government, the proviso would not have been termed in the present form. In that situation the proviso should have provided that the credit of specified duty shall be restricted to the extent of portion of excise duty which is equivalent to the additional duty of customs paid by the 100% E.O.U. The phrase equivalent to the duties of excise specified under (i) (ii) above paid on such inputs refers to the payment of (a) duty of excise under the Central Excise Act and (b) additional duty of excise under the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act. If the Additional Customs duty leviable on like goods includes any other excise duty, such as duty under the Additional Duti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not per se exempted. Only when the same were cleared to Centre for Development of Telecom Office, the same were exempted based on end use. The appellant could not have anticipated that some quantity of the final products could be supplied duty free under the said exemption notification and therefore, the demand is not sustainable on merits as well as on time-bar. 4.3 Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 4.4 I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. It is not the case that the electrical appliances for telephone lines are exempted per se. The clearance of these goods under Notification No. 10/97-C.E., dated 1-3-97 to specific customer as claimed by the appellant was on the knowledge of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
