9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us of 100% EOU, with all due approvals. During the period under dispute, they manufactured rolled products out of raw materials procured from their parent unit (Nalco) situated in the adjacent premises. With due permission of the Development Commissioner, the entire production of rolled products were sold in the DTA, on payment of Central Excise, duty. The dispute pertains to the rate at which such Central Excise Duty is required to be paid for clearance from 100% EOU to DTA. 2. The appellant availed the benefit of Notification No. 08/1997 as well as serial No. 3 of the successor Notification 23/2003, and paid Central Excise Duty at the rate as applicable to such goods if manufactured in DTA. The condition attached to both Notifications wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount. The said impugned order stands challenged in this appeal. 5. The appellant's case was argued by Shri. S. C. Mohanty, Ld. Advocate and Revenue is represented by Shri, S. S. Chattopadhyay, Ld. DR. 6. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant are summarized below:- (i) The Ld. Advocate submitted that the appellant will be entitled to the benefit of the Notifications No. 08/1997 and 23/2003. He justified such claim by submitting that the raw materials used by the appellant were completely indigenous. The use of the item 'Somentor-43' in the form of coolant will not disentitle them to the benefit of such Notification. Since the imported item is not a raw material but is in the nature of 'consumable'. (ii) The entitlement to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranted when the imported consumables are used with the capital goods. In the case of the appellant, the imported items have been used in the manufacturing process and not for the capital goods. Hence, he justified the denial of benefit. 8. Heard both sides and perused the records. 9. The dispute is about the rate of duty applicable to the appellant to pay duty for clearances made in DTA. Being 100% EOU, they paid duty by claiming the benefit of Notification No. 08/1997 as well as the successor Notification No. 23/2003. Duty has been paid at the rate applicable to other indigenous manufacturers. Revenue has sought to deny such benefit by taking the view that the appellant has not satisfied condition specified in the Notification that the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
