9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he conditions of final rebonding. Accordingly, the appellants were required to calculate their duty liabilities and to pay the same. The said duty liability were calculated and finally paid on 4.3.08. They applied for no objection certificate to their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities on the basis of final payment made by them on 4.3.08. Such no objection certificate was issued by the authorities on 18.3.08 and on the said basis, the final rebonding order was issued by the Development Officer on 31.3.08. 2. There is no dispute about the above factual position. It so happened that between the period 4.3.08 and 31.3.08, the appellants made four exports in four shipping bills. As per the appellant, they made a request for filing shipp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... final NOC was issued by the Revenue on 18.3.08 and the final debonding order was issued on 31.3.08, the appellant is required to be considered as 100% EOU or the DTA unit. Our attention stand drawn to para 6.18 of the Foreign Trade Policy, which is as under:- Para 6.18 of FTP (e) Unit proposing to exit out of EOU scheme shall intimate DC and Customs and Central Excise authorities in writing. Unit shall assess duty liability arising out of debonding and submit details of such assessment to Customs and Central Excise authorities. Customs and Central Excise authorities shall confirm duty liabilities on priority basis, subject to the condition that the unit has achieved positive NFE, taking into consideration the depreciation allowed. After ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o whether the period when the appellant discharged its duty liability on 4.3.08 and when the NOC was issued on 18.3.08 would confer the status of 100% EOU on the appellant or not. Admittedly NOC is issued based upon the fact of discharge of entire duty liability by a 100% EOU. As such, if the appellant would not have discharged the entire duty on 4.3.08, the Revenue officer would not have issued No Objection Certificate. As such, the issuance of NOC which is only a procedural formality would relate back to the date of payment of duty liability by the assessee. As such, it can be fairly concluded that when the appellant discharged its duty liability as a 100% EOU on 4.3.08, it become disentitled to claim any benefit of 100% EOU. Conversely t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
