9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts are that: (i) The appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) holding Customs Bonded Warehouse Licence and In-Bond manufacturing sanction order issued under Section 58 and 65 of the Customs Act, for manufacture and export of automotive components, i.e. wiring harness assembly, etc. (ii) The appellant had imported inputs viz., steel coils, plastic pallets, steel wire etc., duty-free and used the same in the manufacture of automotive components and exported the same to various countries. (iii) The appellant informed the Department that the scrap generated in manufacture of bracket assembly was very high (45% approximately) and the appellant had approached office of JDGFT, New Delhi with a request to fix Standard Input Output Norms ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e arises out of the exported goods, duty is payable as if scrap were imported. There is no dispute on the fact of export, therefore, duty cannot be demanded on the raw material content of the scrap. Reliance is placed on the decision of CCE, Surat vs. Goyal Synthetics: 2015 (323) ELT 150 (Tri.-Ahmd.). 5. The learned DR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 6. After having gone through the facts of the case on record and the submissions of both sides, it appears that this is not a case where the appellant has unauthorisedly removed the inputs from their EOU. The period involved is from April 2005 to January 2007, whereas SION have been fixed by the DGFT Committee only on 3.10.2006. In the present case, thus at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in an EOU cannot be treated as imported goods and subjected to customs duty. The duty payable in respect of such goods is the duty of excise under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the duty demand made in the impugned order under Section 28 of the Customs Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the present appeal. However, we make it clear that revenue authorities will be at liberty to demand duty on the imported inputs, if any, used in the production of the cut-flowers in question." 6.2 Further, the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Surat vs. Goyal Synthetics: 2015 (323) ELT 150 (Tri.-Ahmd.) has observed as under: "5. As regards the Department s appeal relating to the demand of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
