Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (2) TMI 1000

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... face of record in the Final Order Nos.41542 to 41545/2015 dated 25.9.2015 passed by the Tribunal. The said final order was a common order for Appeal Nos.E/18 and 325/2008 and E/130 and 134/2010. 2. The appellants in all those appeals were a 100% EOU manufacturing bulk drugs and had cleared the goods to their own DTA unit and to others. The issue that came up for decision in those appeals were as under:- "1) In appeal No.E/18/2008, the main issue is whether indigenous inputs have been used in the manufacture of finished goods cleared in DTA and whether condition (3) of the Notfn 23/03 is admissible to appellant or otherwise. (2) Whether the valuation adopted by Revenue for determining the transaction value of DTA clearance by taking FOB v .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be counted against DTA sales entitlement of 50% of FOB value of exports (b) Sale of goods and services upto 50% of FOB value of exports, subject to fulfillment of minimum NFEP (c) Gems and jewellery units may sell upto 10% of FOB value of exports of the preceding year in DTA subject to fulfillment of NFEP. (d) Sale of scrap / waste / remnants subject to overall ceiling of 50% of FOB value of exports (e) No duty on destruction of scrap / waste / remnants (f) Sale of finished goods which are freely importable under the Policy in the DTA over and above the limit of 50% of FOB value of exports subject to achievement of NFEP/EP. Exceptional cases may be allowed even without achievement of NFEP/EP. (g) For services, including software units .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on'ble CESTAT's observation that insofar as clause (ii) and (iii) of Condition No. 3 of the Notification there is no dispute on either side is an apparent mistake with reference to the material facts on record. 10.2 Therefore even assuming that the appellant-assessee proves at the time of denovo adjudication as ordered by the Hon'ble CESTAT, that the goods cleared were manufactured solely out of indigenous raw materials as required under sub-clause (i) of the impugned notification, they are not eligible for exemption under Notification No.23/2003 for the clearances made during the period from 8.5.2004 to 22.7.2004 inasmuch as the permission granted by the Development Commissioner under para 6.8(f) of the EXIM Policy 2002 - 2007 which was i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pment Commissioner, MEPZ/SEZ giving clarifications on full duty payment for DTA sale. He also submits a copy of a letter dated 26.5.2016 from the Director (Cost), Central Excise, Audit  I, Chennai Commissionerate addressed to the Commissioner of Central Excise informing that goods pertaining to 57 invoices No.L001 to L057 were wholly manufactured out of indigenous raw materials; that imported raw materials were not utilized for goods cleared to the DTA by Sun Pharmaceuticals during 8.5.2004 to 22.7.2004; that the contention of appellant that entire sales pertaining to 57 invoices of DTA clearances are wholly manufactured out of indigenous raw materials is verified and found correct. In the circumstances, the ld. consultant submits that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was raised in the show cause notices and confirmed by the adjudicating authority. This being so, we find merit in the submission of ld. AR that it is incorrect to state that there is no dispute on this matter from the department's side. Hence, we find that the observation of the Tribunal in para 20 of the impugned order, namely, that there is no dispute on either side insofar as clause (ii) and (iii) is concerned, is a mistake apparent on the face of the record, which requires rectification and we proceed to do so accordingly. 9. At the same time, ld. counsel has made contentions that the issue has been clarified by the DGFT and Director (Cost) in their favour. We however find that these communications may not have been available to the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates