9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the appellant have exported only Marine Freight Containers and Special Purpose Containers. The tipper body and Steel Structures cleared by them are not similar to the goods exported as required under 6.8 of the Foreign Trade Policy - In the case in hand, the product in dispute is Tipping Body . The authorities below have decided that it is different from Marine Freight Containers and Open Top Containers. The words used in para 6.8 (a) of FTP is that the EOU unit may sell products in DTA which are similar to the goods that are exported by the unit. The word used is similar and not identical. It can be seen that the open top containers exported by the appellant is similar to the tipper body used for transportation. It is not necessar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rocess of law, the Original Authority confirmed the demand vide order dated 31.12.2007. Aggrieved by such order, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 02.02.2010 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for denovo consideration. In such re-adjudication the Original Authority vide Order-in-Original No.14/2010 dated 26.04.2010 held that the Steel Structures sold in DTA are eligible for concessional rate of duty. However, the Original Authority dis-allowed the concessional rate of duty in regard to tipping bodies. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order passed by the Original Authority. Hence this appeal. 2. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cleared for DTA and process adopted for the manufacture of other containers including open top container exported by the appellant as EOU are the same. Therefore, tipper body is nothing but similar product to open top container. To support his argument, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Abi Turnamatics Vs. Commissioner of GST CE 2019 (366) ELT 1048 (Tri. Chennai). 5. The learned counsel urged that once the No Due Certificate under Final Exit Order dated 30.05.2007 has been issued, subsequently Show Cause Notice proposing to deny the benefit of notification availed by the appellant as an EOU is without jurisdiction and not sustainable. 6. It is argued by the learned counsel that the view tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... located at No.104, Pollivakkam Village, Tiruvallur Sriperumbudur Road, Tiruvallur 602 002 in respect of letter permission No. PER 362 (1993)EOB/366/93 dated 27.08.93 for a value of Rs.10 crores in the DTA as Advance DTA Sale : i) Trailers and semi-trailers for heavy vehicles, not mechanically propelled and parts thereof. ii) Aluminium Structures and Parts of Structures, AluminiumReservoirs, Tanks, Vats and similar containers. iii) Sheet piling of iron or steel, welded angles, sections, etc. steel structures and parts of structures, railway track construction materials of iron and steel. iv) Containers of iron/steel/aluminium/stainless steel and/or any other materials both mobile and stationery specially designed and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods cleared in DTA are not similar to the goods exported by the appellant. The adjudicating authority in para 11 of the impugned order has relied upon para 3 of Board Circular 7/2006-Cus., dated 13-1-2006 which has observed that there is no definition of similar goods . Hence to bring clarification and uniformity that the definition of similar goods would be based on the definition of similar goods as provided in the Customs Valuation (Determination of Pride of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. The relevant portion of the Board s clarification is under :- The term similar goods means goods which is although not alike in all respects, have like characteristics and like component materials which enable them to perform the same func ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nents of turbo charger and hence will surely fall under the broad banded term turbo charger components which is the export product as per the EOU/green card issued to the appellant by the Development Commissioner. Hence when the permission granted to appellant has not listed any specific components of a turbo charger but instead has only indicated export product as 12,50,000 nos. of turbo charger component which was even subsequently enhanced to 32,00,000 nos. of turbo charger components, the appellant cannot then be said to have caused a breach of the conditions. Both bearing housing and turbine wheel are surely component parts of turbo charger, a fact which has been admitted by the adjudicating authority in para 12 of the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
