Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 2044 - AT - Central Excise100% EOU - refund of duty on the finished goods lying in stock as per RG-I register on the date of issue of NOC - export of prior to issue of final debonding order - HELD THAT - In the present case, the issue is regarding the payment of duty on the goods in question, which have been exported prior to debonding. It is not disputed that export of the goods has already taken place prior to debonding - The ld. Counsel relies in the case of M/S. FATEH GRANITES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR II 2013 (12) TMI 1686 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , wherein it has been held even if the goods were exported, refund of the duty paid on finished goods lying in stock at the time of debonding and as such stock was later on exported, hence the appellants cannot be denied refund of duty paid. The refund was granted to the appellant - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Duty payment on finished goods in stock at the time of debonding for 100% EOU under Foreign Trade Policy. Analysis: The case involved the issue of duty payment on finished goods in stock at the time of debonding for a 100% EOU operating under the Foreign Trade Policy of the Government of India. The appellants, after fulfilling their export obligations, requested debonding. The Department granted NOCs considering relevant rules under the Foreign Trade Policy and Central Excise Act/Rules. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued for duty recovery on finished goods in stock at the time of NOC issuance, even though the goods had been exported before debonding. The appellants contended that no stock was present at debonding, and duty was paid as per Central Excise Act provisions. The Tribunal analyzed the contentions and referred to a previous case where it was held that even if goods were exported after debonding, duty refund on finished goods in stock at debonding was permissible. Relying on this precedent, the Tribunal found the issue to be identical and unsustainable. Consequently, the order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The Tribunal emphasized that since the goods had already been exported before debonding, the duty refund should be granted, following the established legal principles.
|