Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2009 (8) TMI 564

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e the impugned order, the Commissioner confirmed demand being the exemption availed on imports of unserviceable motors etc., as not admissible. Held that- The appellants commenced production on 1-9-2004 and the disputed activities took place within five years of 1-9-2004. Therefore the appellants could not be denied the benefit of Notification No. 52/03-Cus. for the impugned imports on the ground that the same were subjected to segregation which did not amount to manufacture as defined in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. We also find that the same adjudicating authority has allowed the benefit of exemption notification to the appellant. In respect of a similar consignment used for segregating scrap in view of the Public Notice No. 45 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iscation. Applicable interest on the irregular exemption availed was demanded under Section 28AB of the Customs Act (the Act). He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Act on the appellants. The assssee's failure to comply with the conditions of the Notification inviting confiscation of goods u/s 111(o) was found on the basis that the appellant had not undertaken any manufacturing activity using the goods imported availing exemption under Notification No. 52/03-Cus. The appellants have raised several grounds in the appeal before the Tribunal. They had segregated scrap from the imported non-serviceable motors etc. by a process involving breaking and cutting with gas cutters, chisels, and other machine/hand tool .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed by the CBEC to the effect that duty exemption extended to goods procured by an EOU, under Notification No. 1/95-C.E. could not be denied on the ground that the said goods were not used in the process of manufacture as defined under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. Manufacture had to be given a broader meaning in the context of exemption allowed to goods procured by EOU, for production of articles for export. 2. During hearing the learned Counsel submitted that the same authority had dropped a similar proposal as adjudged in the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 6/08 V(II) (D) C.E., dated 26-11-2008. While dropping the proposal in the said order, the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on a Public Notice issued by the DGFT dated 31-8-05 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... manufacturing process on the impugned goods and therefore the goods were not qualified for the exemption availed at the time of their import. The impugned order was passed in accordance with law and deserve to be sustained. 4. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by both sides. The impugned demand of duty and interest has been confirmed against M/s. Tirumala Impex and order of confiscation of the impugned goods and fine passed on the ground that the appellants had availed exemption under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus., dated 31-3-2003 at the time of import of consignment of mixed ferrous and non-ferrous metal scrap, unserviceable motors, pumps etc. and did not use them in the manufacture of articles .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ter dated 5-4-2007 that the activity undertaken by the appellants of segregating scrap from unserviceable electrical/mechanical equipment such as motors, transformers, gears and pumps constituted manufacturing activity. We also find that in Circular No. 314/30/97-C.X., dated 6-5-1997 CBEC had clarified that a broader view was called for in respect of interpretation of the provisions of Notification No. 1/95-C.E. and exemption may not be restricted only to cases where manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Act was involved. The circular also clarified that exemption under the said Notification would be applicable to 100% EOU engaged in galvanizing of black MS Pipes. From the above clarification it is obvious that manufacture for the purpose o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates