9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of final products. In this case also, if at all duty is to be demanded, that can be demanded on the final products and the Customs duty on the imported raw materials cannot be demanded - Following decision of CCE, Surat v. Sanjari Twisters [2007 (9) TMI 369 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] - Stay granted. - C/855-857/2010 - Stay Order Nos. S/209-211/2012-WZB/C-I(CSTB) - Dated:- 9-1-2012 - Shri Ashok Jindal and P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sanjay Kalra, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER The applicant M/s. Vivilon Textiles Industries Pvt. Ltd., (VTIPL) is seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Customs duty of Rs. 37,65,791/- and equivalent amount of penalty. Penalties of Rs. 10.00 lakhs on c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate issued by them and also received re-warehousing certificates to indicate receipt of PTY supplied by VTIPL. 2.2 On investigation it was revealed that PTY cleared by VTIPL was in fact diverted in transit to local market and never received by the recipient unit. A separate show cause notice was issued to the recipient unit, who issued CT-3 certificate and demand of duty was confirmed against them along with penalties. 2.3 As it was revealed that PTY cleared by VTIPL was never received and used for specific purpose by the recipient unit. Therefore, the impugned show-cause notice was issued to the applicant firm for alleged mis-use of duty free imported POY in manufacture of PTY, which was diverted in local market in violation of provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise duty has been confirmed against the recipient unit by separate show-cause notice the denial of exemption under Notification No. 53/97 is not sustainable at all and Customs duty cannot be demanded from the applicants. He also relied on the decision in the case of Umagi Overseas v. CCE, Thane-II, reported in 2009 (248) E.L.T. 876 (Tri.-Mum.). 5. The stay application was strongly opposed by Shri Sanjay Kalra, the ld. AR, who submitted that there are two separate proceedings under two different show-cause notices and re-warehousing certificates are also in doubt. Therefore, the benefit of Notification No. 53/97 is not available to the applicant firm as they have not complied with the condition of said notification. During the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Umaji Overseas (supra), wherein this Tribunal has observed that in a case 100% EOU like the appellants are exempted from payment of duty on inputs since duty was demanded on final products, thus, the demand is on the final products. Therefore, prima facie any duty of customs is not leviable on the imported/indigenously procured inputs used in the manufacture of final products. In this case also, if at all duty is to be demanded, that can be demanded on the final products and the Customs duty on the imported raw materials cannot be demanded as held by the judicial pronouncements discussed herein above. 8. The applicants are having a strong case on violation of principles of natural justice also. Therefore, as discussed above, we waive the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
