9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e declared by the Appellant. The Appellate Commissioner further observed that subsequent variation in prices of these goods is of no avail either to the Appellant or to the department. The letters dated 2.12.2009 and /or 30.12.2009 were only verifying the duty discharged by the Appellant pursuant to their application for debonding and could not be construed as final assessment order as there was no quantification of any confirmed liability. Moreover, no provisional assessment was sought by the Appellant under Rule 7(1) of the Central Excise Rules and no order finalizing provisional assessment was passed under Rule 7(3) of the Central Excise Rules. On going through the provisions, of Appendix 14-I-L, it is found that in terms of Note-(ii) to this Appendix, a 100% EOU must be continued to be treated as EOU/EHTP/STP unit till the date of final exit order. Based on this note, the Tribunal in the cases of COMMR. OF CUS. C. EX., VADODARA VERSUS SOLITAIRE MACHINE TOOLS P. LTD. [ 2002 (11) TMI 165 - CEGAT, MUMBAI] has held that a unit would continue to be treated as EOU unit till the date of final exit order and would be subject to monitoring of the stipulated obligations under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls on 16.10.2009 and the Appellant stopped availing the duty concessions available to an EOU from the said date. Further, the Appellant self-assessed the Customs and Excise duty liability on the stock as at the cut off date which included finished goods stock of 3917.22 MT and manufactured waste of 163 MT. The Appellant had, inter alia, provisionally assessed Excise duty of Rs. 4,58,84,590/- on the stock of finished goods on the basis of the then prevailing sales price and discharged the said Excise duty on 22.10.2009. The Customs and Excise duty as self-assessed by the Appellant were verified by the Customs Authorities vide letters dated 2.12.2009 and 30.12.2009. The said stock of finished goods was sold and removed from the factory to customers in the domestic market (3685 MT) and for export (396 MT) during the period 22.10.2009 upto 22.01.2010 at a reduced price resulting in an excess payment of Excise duty of Rs. 33,44,886/-. The Appellant obtained a No Objection Certificate dated 19.03.2010 from the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and the Unit was finally de-bonded from the EOU Scheme with effect from 1.04.2010 in terms of the de-bonding order dated 29.03.2010. The Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Central Excise Rules. The letters dated 2 December 2009 and/or 30 December 2009 could not be construed as final assessment orders as there was no quantification of any confirmed liablity. (D) The learned Consultant further referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the following cases: (i) CC Vs. Solitaire Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. 2003 (152) ELT 384 (para 8) (ii) Jubilant Life Sciences Ltd. Vs. CCE 2013 (11) TMI 1213 (para 7 para 6) (iii) Bhati and Company Vs. CCE 2019 (9) TMI 1500 (para 7) 5. The learned departmental representative appearing for the revenue re-iterates and supports the findings in the OIA 6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 7. The issue arising for our consideration in this appeal relates to refund of excess paid excise duty on the manufactured Finished Goods (FG) and waste pursuant to debonding from the EOU Scheme vis- -vis its subsequent removal/clearance from the factory to the domestic and export market at a reduced price. It is not in dispute that excise duty was initially discharged on the stock of manufactured FG (3917.22 MT) and waste (163 MT) lying on the cutoff date i.e. 15.10.2009 with reference to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2011. After payment of duty as approved by the Central Excise Authorities, the assessee was granted No Objection Certificate (NOC) by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise on 28.04.2011 and the assessee was issued final debonding order by the DC on 11.06.2011. However, the assessee had exported the stock of FG before final debonding Order dated 11.06.2011 and therefore filed a refund claim in respect of excise duty paid in excess on the said stock of FG. The said FG stock was exported before and after the NOC dated 28.04.2011 from the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise. Similar contention as is advanced herein was raised by the revenue that after in principle approval of debonding but before the final debonding Order, the stock of FG would be deemed to have been cleared into DTA. Negating the said contention of the revenue, the Tribunal observed in para 7 as under: 7. On going through the provisions, of Appendix 14-I-L, we find that in terms of Note-(ii) to this Appendix, a 100% EOU must be continued to be treated as EOU/EHTP/STP unit till the date of final exit order. Based on this note, the Tribunal in the cases of Solitaire Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Bajaj F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
