9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1031X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir actual clearance from the manufacturing unit. We could not get any legal basis for such confirmation of duty in the impugned order. The appellant/assessee categorically asserted that the work in progress stock has been manufactured using indigenous cotton on which no excise duty or any other duty benefit has been availed. No other imported or indigenous consumables were used in the manufacture, on which custom or excise duty is forgone. On this factual basis, we find no justification to confirm any duty liability on work in progress stock in terms of Section 3 (1) or the proviso of the said section of the Act. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. - Excise Appeals No. 1703 and 2003 of 2011 - Final Order No. 56 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant/assessee is eligible for exemption under Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 23/2003-CE as they have fulfilled the condition No. 3 (i) readwith Explanation II. He further held that the appellant/assessee is liable to pay an amount of ₹ 14,90,681/- and ₹ 18,33,729/- in terms of proviso to Section 3 (1) and Section 3 (1) respectively, of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The Revenue is in appeal on the first issue of allowing exemption under Notification 23/2003-CE to the appellant/ assessee. In the grounds of appeal, the Revenue submitted that the appellant/assessee had filed drawback claims in respect of cotton procured upto January 2008. Notification 23/2003-CE provides that goods received from DTA under benefit of deemed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned the issue in detail before coming to the conclusion that the demand for differential duty is not sustainable. It was recorded that during the period 01/07/2007 to 16/05/2008 when the DTA clearances were made by the respondent, they had not availed any benefit of deemed export, on the raw materials used. Thus, during the said period, they were eligible for the benefit in terms of Sl. No. 3 of the Notification No. 23/03-CE. The bonafide of the respondent has also been recorded by the Original Authority. As such, we find no sustainable ground in the present appeal warranting interference in the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed . 4. In view of the above findings in the assessee s own case we find no merit in the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of yarn. He proceeded to classify these items under Heading 5203 attracting nil rate of duty. Further, it was recorded that the duty demanded at stages from simplex are on different stages of manufacture of yarn. He held that duty liability is correctly demanded under Tariff Heading 5205. He further proceeded to confirm duty in terms of Section 3 (1). Admittedly, the appellant/assessee had paid all the applicable duty on capital goods, raw materials, packing materials and finished goods available with them in the EOU at the time of de-bonding. As per the legal requirement, the appellant/assessee is required to surrender all the benefits availed on inputs, consumables, capital goods, lying in stock at various stages. Once the benefit availe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
