9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hi, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri N.A. Sayyad, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)] - In the first appeal, the assessee prays for grant of refund of Central Excise duty of Rs. 61,752/- in respect of the goods (machines) cleared to a 100% EOU during the period from May to November '98. In the second appeal, the assessee challenges demand of duty of Rs. 42,204/- on vacuum cleaners supplied to the EOU during the period from February to May 1997. 2. The refund claim was made on the strength of Order-in-Appeal dated 30-10-1998 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) granting the benefit of a notification to the assessee. The original authority had denied the benefit of the notification to the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /729/01), it is submitted that Order-in-Appeal dated 30-10-98 had attained finality in the absence of challenge by the department and, therefore, it was not open to the Commissioner (Appeals) to deny the benefit of Notification No. 1/95-C.E. to the assessee de hors Order-in-Appeal dated 30-10-98. It is submitted that the goods, in question, had been cleared to the EOU under CT3 certificates issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the EOU. It is submitted that these CT3 certificates had not been cancelled or revoked by the range officer and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to supply goods to the EOU without payment of duty. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the payment of duty 'under prot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority will verify such documents (to be produced by the assessee) and determine whether the refund claim is barred by unjust enrichment. For this limited purpose, we remand the case to the original authority after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of adducing evidence and being personally heard. 4. Appeal E/1103/07 is against demand of duty of Rs. 42,204/- which was confirmed by the original authority in adjudication of the relevant show-cause notices and eventually confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). After hearing both sides, we find that the short question arising for consideration is whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/95-C.E. ibid in respect of vacuum cleaners supplied by them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use notice after holding that the aforesaid materials were brought into the EOU premises in connection with the manufacture of their final products. Their Lordships held thus : "the exemption notification provides that capital goods brought in 100% EOU undertaking are to be used in connection with the manufacture of goods and it is not the condition that such capital goods is to be used in the manufacture of goods directly. That satisfies the basic condition of exemption notification......." In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the vacuum cleaners were brought into the EOU (the assessee's customer) for the purpose of keeping the factory atmosphere dust-free so as, obviously, to make the factory atmosphere healthy for the factory w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
