Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 299 - AT - Central Excise100% EOU - debonding - DTA sales made by the appellant against advance DTA permission - Concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 23/2003-CE (Sl. No. 2) - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that:- Since, the exemption Notification No. 23/2003-CE in terms of its condition, provides concessional rate of duty only to the goods cleared into domestic tariff area in accordance with sub-para (a), (d), (e) or (g) of para 6.8 of the Foreign Trade Policy and since it does not cover the goods cleared into DTA against advance DTA sale permission given under sub-para (k) of para 6.8 of the Foreign Trade Policy, it is very clear that the goods sold into DTA against advance DTA sales permission granted under para 6.8 (k) are not covered by this notification. The fact that the advance DTA clearances in terms of para 6.8 (k) of the Foreign Trade Policy are not covered by this exemption notification is also clear from the Condition (II) (b) of the notification, according to which the total value of the goods cleared into DTA under sub-para (a), (d), (e) and (g) of para 6.8 does not exceed 50% of the FOB value of exports made during the financial year. Letter from Development Commissioner permitting advance DTA clearances by the appellant is also mis-leading as while it refers to the permission being granted in terms of para (g) of Appendix 14 1H of Handbook of Procedures, which pertains to advance DTA clearances, it does not mention para 6.8 (k) of the Foreign Trade Policy, which is the parent provision under which the advance DTA clearances can be given. - As the Condition No.II of the said notification could not be fulfilled by the appellant, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to claim the benefit of the notification. Consequently, the appellant is liable to pay duty. Therefore, the appellant have no case on merits. Advocate for the appellant as the Counsel himself has admitted that the appellant is not able to fulfill the Condition No.II attached to the Notification No.23/03-CE. Therefore, claiming the benefit thereof does not arise. This fact was not brought in the knowledge of the Department by the assessee by availing the benefit of the said notification. In these terms, the lower authorities have rightly invoked the extended period of limitation. - Decided against assessee.
|