9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - The respondent imported 1,98,000/- kgs of Ball Clay (Hymod Blue Shredded) (Natural Clay other than Activated Clay) under DEPB scheme from U.K. and filed Bill of Entry No. 1295/05, dated 18-10-05. The said Bill of Entry was assessed and Customs duty of Rs. 2,42,708.40 and Education Cess @ 2% of the Customs duty amounting to Rs. 4854.17 was debited in DEPB No. 3410014206, dated 29-8-05. 2. Being aggrieved by the Department's action of debiting Education Cess in the DEPB, the appellant has filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds that :- (i) For imports under DEPB, as per Notification No. 45/2002-Cus., dated 22-4-02 and No. 89/2005-Cus., d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing duty credit in the Duty Entitlement Pass Book on exports at the rates specified and subsequently by debiting an amount equal to duty payable, against such credit in the Pass Book, on imports. As such, such crediting and debiting of duty amounts is a matter of procedure and convenience, but the notification basically provides full exemption from customs duty. Our view is supported by earlier decision of the Tribunal in Essar Steel Ltd. v. CCE, Vishakhapatnam - 2004 (173) E.L.T. 239 (Tri. - LB), wherein it was held that Modvat credit against DEPB Debits cannot be allowed, as duties are exempted under the DEPB Scheme and the relevant notification. 7. We find that the provisions in the said Finance Act specify the Education Cess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, rejected. 4.The said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is impugned before us. 5. As against the above, the Revenue in their Memo of appeal has contended that Notification in the Reliance Industries decision was Notification No. 45/2002-Cus., dated 22-4-02, whereas in the present matter Notification No. 89/2005-Cus., dated 4-10-05 is involved. The condition No. (vi) of Notification No. 89/2005-Cus. was not there in Notification No. 45/2002-Cus. and as such there is vital difference between these two notifications. The ratio of law declared by the Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. will not apply. 6.We have considered the condition No. (vi) of Notification No. 89/2005-Cus. The same is to the following effec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
