TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, the claim of the appellant in this regard has to be rejected. - Decided against the assessee. Regarding benefit of Notification No. 2/95 - clearance with the permission of the Development Commissioner - held that:- Duty demand has been confirmed on the entire quantity without allowing the benefit of Notification No. 2/95, which is not correct. Therefore, the duty liability needs to be recomputed by extending the benefit of Notification No. 2/95 in respect of clearances made within the permissible limit and only in respect of the excess quantity, the benefit of the notification would not apply. - matter has to be considered afresh by the adjudicating authority and the duty liability needs to be recomputed. Therefore, we remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emoved clandestinely grey cotton fabrics measuring 1,75,770.20 metres valued at ₹ 55,37,170/- evading Central Excise duty of ₹ 29,17,122/- during the period March, 1998 to August, 1999. The raw materials were procured from M/s. Jamshri, Gopal Jajoo and M/s. Puja Textiles without any CT-3 certificates and without payment of duty and the finished fabrics were cleared into the DTA without obtaining any permission from the Development Commissioner and without payment of excise duty. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 14-1-2002 was issued demanding excise duty of ₹ 1,51,52,772/- under the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest thereon under Section 11AB ibid. The notice also proposed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at ₹ 86,75,765/- based on the production and exports made during April, 1999 to June, 1999 and this permission was valid till 30-6-2000. Thus, the appellant had requisite permission for clearance of grey fabrics into DTA during the impugned period and the adjudicating authority in para 14.9 of the impugned order had held that the clearance of the grey fabrics by the appellant into DTA were subsequently regularized and they have to be considered as cleared with the permission of the Development Commissioner and the goods cleared were held to be allowed to be sold in India by the Development Commissioner. Accordingly, he ordered that the appellant is liable to pay duty on the clearance made in terms of the provisions of Section 3(1) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent Commissioner. Hence, I hold that the aforesaid goods were allowed to be sold in India by the Development Commissioner, and accordingly, the said goods are liable for payment of duty as provided for in the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This finding of the adjudicating authority is not disputed either by the appellant or by the Revenue. The only dispute is with respect to eligibility to benefit of Notification No. 8/97-C.E., dated 1-3-1997. The said notification granted exemption on finished products, rejects and waste produced or manufactured in a 100% EOU wholly from the raw materials produced or manufactured in India and allowed to be sold in India, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se invoice. This position has been clearly admitted. If that be so, the appellant cannot legitimately claim the benefit of Notification No. 8/97, even for the period prior to 2-6-1998 and, therefore, the claim of the appellant in this regard has to be rejected. 5.2 As regards the claim of the appellant for the benefit of Notification No. 2/95, which provided for a concessional rate of duty of 50% of each of the duty of customs leviable on like goods produced and manufactured outside India, if imported into India, the said exemption was subject to conditions. The condition required to be satisfied were - (i) the amount of duty payable under the above Notification should not be less than the duty of excise leviable on like goods manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces, the appellant was eligible for the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 2/95-C.E., dated 4-1-1995. Thus only in respect of clearances in excess of what has been permitted, the appellant would be liable to pay excise duty without the benefit of Notification No. 2/1995. 5.3 From the impugned order, it is seen that the duty demand has been confirmed on the entire quantity without allowing the benefit of Notification No. 2/95, which is not correct. Therefore, the duty liability needs to be recomputed by extending the benefit of Notification No. 2/95 in respect of clearances made within the permissible limit and only in respect of the excess quantity, the benefit of the notification would not apply. 6. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
