Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 125 - AT - Central ExciseRevocation of registration under Central Excise - allegation of on-existent manufacturing facility to operate as a central excise assessee and claim benefits arising therefrom. - Import of goods against the Entitlement for Duty free entitlement credit certificate (DFECC) - absence of factory address in the bills of entry - N/N. 53/2003-Cus dated 1st April 2003 - HELD THAT:- We may, at the outset, decline to have anything to do with propriety of import, or adherence to obligations devolving, under ‘duty free entitlement credit certificate (DFECC)’ scheme in the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), operationalized through notification no. 53/2003-Cus dated 1st April 2003, as the lack of jurisdiction with the lower authorities precludes our jurisdictional competence too. There is no evidence of proceedings having been initiated under Customs Act, 1962 It is no less surprising that the exercise of revocation has been undertaken by the tax authorities for recovery of credit, taken under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, of duty discharged by the appellant at the time of import and utilised towards partial discharge of duty liability arising on clearance of goods; it does not appear to us that there is sound logic in appellant choosing to discharge duty liabilities, at different stages, on goods that were ultimately to be exported and to be unduly benefited from the exchequer when all that was sought to be reimbursed were the very same duties that were eligible to be neutralised upon exports. Revocation of registration, not provided for in Central Excise Rules, 2002 and only in exercise of power of Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) to specify conditions, safeguards and procedure in rule 9(3) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, can be triggered only within the rigour therein and with discharge of duty liability certainly not being breach of Act or Rules, the revocation upheld by the first appellate authority is not valid in law. Duty on final product having been discharged by the appellant, and not excluded, by any stretch, from the definition of manufacture applied to the ‘taxable event’ in section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944, denial of CENVAT credit by the original authority in the order impugned here, as held in COMMISSIONER VERSUS CREATIVE ENTERPRISES [2009 (7) TMI 1206 - SC ORDER], does not have sanction of law. Appeal allowed.
|