Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2024 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 392 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of differential duty - duty short-paid by claiming that the goods cleared into the ‘domestic tariff area (DTA)’ between June 2007 and September 2015 were similar to the goods exported by them - concession under N/N. 1/2011-CE dated 1st March 2011 as amended by notification no. 16/2012-CE dated 17th March 2012 - time limitation - HELD THAT:- It is found that the eligibility for the exemption from additional duties of customs upto 2011, and concessional rate of duty thereafter under alternative notification, has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/S. ESSILOR INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE [2016 (5) TMI 303 - SUPREME COURT] which has held that the goods could not be treated as “semi-finished” and it could be appropriately described as “to be finished spectacle lenses”. Therefore, such lenses would clearly be treated as spectacle lenses and were [xx] entitled to exemption notification which view was taken by even the department itself for earlier years. The issue stands settle insofar as eligibility for concessional rate of duty in terms of notification no. 6/2006-CE dated 1st March 2006 is concerned. The question of eligibility in the environment in which that exemption was replaced by the one relied upon by appellant thereafter, viz., notification no. 1/2011-CE dated 1st March 2011 vis-a-vis the amendment effected to the tariff stricture would need to be examined in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- It is found that the notice, while having travelled beyond the normal period of limitation for a portion of the disputed period is quite possibly within the limitation period for the remaining. The details, however, needs to be ascertained and, in view of the finding in relation to the latter two of the four show cause notices, it may be appropriate for being decided afresh. The impugned order set aside and matter remanded for a fresh decision - The appeal is, accordingly, disposed off by partially modifying the impugned order and remanding the remaining part of the impugned order.
|