9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for benefit of such Notification cannot be said to be a mis-declaration as held by the hon'ble apex Court in Northern Plastics Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs & Central Excise [1998 (7) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. If the department felt that the respondent was not entitled to such exemption, they should have issued the show cause notice within the period stipulated under Section 11A. Revenue's reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Endress + Hauser Flowtech (I) Pvt. Ltd. (2008 (11) TMI 159 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) does not come to their rescue for the reason that B-17 bonds are executed not only by the 100% EoUs but also units in the DTA. If Section 11A is applicable in respect of units in DTA who have executed B-17 bonds befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imit. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Endress + Hauser Flowtech (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad 2009 (237) ELT 598. 3.1 The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order merits to be sustained inasmuch as the appellant had intimated to the department vide letter dated 14/06/2004 informing the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner that they had obtained permission for advance DTA sale and they would be effecting clearances on payment of appropriate Central Excise duty. In the ER-2 returns filed by the respondent, the respondent had clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Endress + Hauser Flowtech (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) does not come to their rescue for the reason that B-17 bonds are executed not only by the 100% EoUs but also units in the DTA. If Section 11A is applicable in respect of units in DTA who have executed B-17 bonds before the department, the same logic would apply in respect of 100% EoUs as well. Therefore, the argument that merely because the respondent has executed a B-17 bond they would fall outside the purview of Section 11A is illogical and irrational. One cannot interpret the law in such a way so as to make the provisions of law redundant. 6. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, we dismiss the same as devoid of merits. (Dictated in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
