9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant had availed the benefit of Sr. No.3 to Notification No. 23/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003. Periodic demands were raised seeking to deny such concessional rate benefit, on the ground that when raw materials were procured from 100% EOU / SEZ units, the same amounts to "imports" for the purpose of procurement of goods by the Appellant and hence, ineligible for such benefit of Sr. No.3 to Notification No. 23/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003. The following appeals have been filed on this ground: Sr. No Appeal No. Period Involved SCN date OIA No. & Date Inputs procured from Amount of Duty Rs. 1 E/12091/2016 21.09.06 to 20.03.10 02.09.2011 VAD-EXCUS003-APP-231-2016-17 dated 18.07.16 SEZ, EOU and DTA units 10,71,187/- 2 E/10162/2018 2006-07 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shows there is no suppression involved in the matter. That similar compliances were made by the Appellant just as in the case of Phthalo Colours (supra) and therefore in so far as the appeals involving receipt of inputs from other 100% EOUs are concerned, the same are allowed on the ground that the demand is time-barred. 4. As regards appeal No. E/12185/2018, we find that the first Appellate authority did not condone a minor delay of in filing the appeal. We find that there were sufficient reasons for the delay which ought to have been condoned. We therefore condone such delay and remand this appeal to first Appellate authority to decide the same in line with the outcome of the other appeals in the present order. 5. As regards raw mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported out of India. Such view was also upheld by Hon'ble Apex court as reported at 2010(255) E.L.T. A115 (SC). A similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Tirupati Udyog Ltd 2011 (272) E.L.T. 209 (AP) more particularly at Paras 16, 21, 26 and thereof. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd 2017 (356) E.L.T. 380 (Kar) dealt with this issue and held that goods produced/manufactured in another EOU/SEZ has to be treated as manufactured in India only and the recipient 100% EOU is eligible to claim cash refund of CST. That similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mittal Technopat Pvt. Ltd 2017 (355) E.L.T. 3 (Cal) as also by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
