9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and their components, assemblies, sub-assemblies falling under Chapter 90 of CETA. They have imported various raw materials, components etc. without payment of duty under Notification No.52/2003-Cus. dt.31.3.2003. Similarly, they have procured indigenous goods also without payment of duty under Notification No.22/2003-CE dt. 31.3.2003 for the manufacture of their final products. The final products are exported as well as cleared for domestic market. A dispute arose regarding determination of duty liability of the appellant-assessee for clearances of some of their final products to DTA. There were various issues which were disputed and the impugned order adjudicated on these disputes. Appellant-assessee has filed their appeal with reference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EOUs in cases of clearance to DTA. In such situation, we find that there is no violation of condition of Notification No.53/97-Cus. The products are excisable but exempt. As such, they cannot be called non-excisable goods. We also note that the original authority confirmed the duty liability of the inputs on the ground that appellant-assessee paid in similar situation earlier. We note that this cannot be a reason to apply the legal provisions for the facts of the case. On careful analysis of the case, we find that findings of the original authority on this issue is not legally sustainable. Accordingly, the appeal by the appellant-assessee is allowed. 5. The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order on three issues. First is regarding the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... note that vide letter dt. 22.7.2002, the jurisdictional officer communicated the permission of the Commissioner for clearance of cover glasses and cuvetter glasses to DTA as optical components based on the advice of IIT Madras. We have also perused the opinion received from the Professor, IIT Madras. It states that samples are optical components but not optically worked. It would appear that the goods cleared by the appellant-assessee to DTA though may broadly fall under the category of optical components, they are not fit to be used as such without further work. In the appeal, Revenue did not bring out any evidence to support their claim that these are not at all optical items or components but are simple glasses. We find no reason to inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
