TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be affixed with MRP were not subject to MRP based assessment - The assessee had paid on invoice value of the impugned clearances, the customs duty, the CVD worked out on the basis of MRP and had not paid the SAD - The impugned demand if paid would be available to the appellant instantly as CENVAT credit since the clearances were made to assessee’s own DTA unit - Therefore, the demand of duty is, prima facie, not sustainable - Hence, waiver of pre-deposit of the dues adjudged against the appellant and stay recovery - E/1042/2009 - S/4/2011-WZB/C-II(EB) - Dated:- 29-12-2010 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Shri P. Karthikeyan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri S.A. Gandecha, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.S. Katiyar, SDR, for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 23/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003, the impugned order held the same inadmissible to the impugned clearances. 2. We have heard both sides. We note that the assessee had challenged the proposal to deny the exemption under Notification 23/2003-C.E. on the ground that the show-cause notice did not contain requisite proposals with enabling provisions to deny the said benefit. The impugned clearances were not liable to SAD as clearances of such goods made by DTA units were not exempt from SAD, the condition for exemption from SAD as per the notification. The impugned goods were subject to MRP based assessment and, therefore, they had worked out the CVD component of the aggregate customs duty payable on DTA clearances by the EOU in accordance wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the demand proposed in the show-cause notice and later confirmed on the plea of revenue neutrality. 4. We find that in the following cases the apex court had rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue for the reason that a successful outcome of such appeal would entail a revenue neutral situation. (i) Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune v. Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd. - 2007 (213) E.L.T. 490 (S.C.); (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur v. Jamshedpur Beverages - 2007 (214) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.); (iii) Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Vadodara v. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. - 2005 (179) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.); (iv) Commissioner of Central Excise Customs v. Narayan Polyplast - 2005 (179) E.L.T. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
