9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that: - The Board’s letter has clarified that EOU scheme covers even those activities which may not be strictly considered as manufacture under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. Hence, it has been further clarified that exemption under notification No.1/95-CE will also be applicable to a 100% EOU. In the present case, the process of making cotton sliver from fibre, may not amount to manufacture as per section 2(f). But the appellant has been permitted to produce the same and export. As per the 100% EOU scheme, if such goods are cleared into DTA, Customs duty will be payable with benefit of N/N. 23/2003. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Excise Appeal No.1144 of 2009 - A/53504/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 26-5-2017 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en filed. 3. With the above background, we have heard Ms. Rinky Arora, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri M R Sharma, learned DR for the Revenue. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the disputed goods are described as combed cotton /sliver. These goods are made in the appellants factory by processing cotton fabric. They cannot be considered as manufactured product. No duty will be liable on clearance of such goods from the factory of appellants, a 100% EOU since duty rate specified in the notification No.23/2003 (S.No.4) are made applicable only to the goods produced or manufactured solely from the material produced or manufactured in India. She also relied upon the following case laws:- 1. CT Cotton Yarn Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liver will have to be considered as manufacture within the broader view of the term manufacture applicable to 100% EOU. Consequently, he has held that customs duty will be liable to be paid with the benefit of notification No.23/2003 (S.No.4). 7. In the case of STL Exports Ltd. a 100% EOU, the dispute was with reference to the process of galvanization carried out on pipes. It was held that duty will be liable to be paid even though the process directly may not fall within the definition of manufacture. Similar views have also been taken by the Tribunal in many of other cases cited by the learned DR. In the present case, the process of making cotton sliver from fibre, may not amount to manufacture as per section 2(f). But the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
