TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unless the waste and scrap aspect is reconciled for the period November, 96 to April, 2003 it is difficult to reach to any conclusion prematurely about the export or no export of 2,35,54,000 pieces of cannulae. Unless cannulae is properly accounted for it is difficult to hold the manufactured quantity of specific goods were exported. Therefore, it is required to be ensured that the claim of waste and scrap as that is in appeal No. C/580/2008 should not grant undue advantage to the plea of export in the present appeal - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue. - C/191/2009-CUS(DB) - Final ORDER NO. 51303/2014 - Dated:- 28-3-2014 - D N Panda and Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri R K Mishra, DR For the Respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y amount of duty involved in imported raw material i.e. cannulae, amounting to ₹ 10,97,687/- used for manufacture of needles exported became recoverable from appellant under Rule 8 of the Customs (Import of goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods) Rule, 996 invoking extended period of five years as provided under section 28 of the Customs Act, 962 alongwith interest payable under Sec 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962. Similarly Central Excise duty of ₹ 33,20,546/- was leviable on the exported needles was recoverable from the appellant invoking the extended period of five years as provided under section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 treating export of 2,35,54,000 pieces of needles valued at S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her were diverted for home consumption. 6. The adjudicating authority vide Order-In-Original No. MP(Dem-50/2007)05 of 2008 dated 23.01.2008 held that the case is of export of goods and not included in LOP shall not be liable to duty, He further held that the charge of suppression of facts/fraud/collusion etc. can not be made against the respondent and Show Cause Notice was barred by limitation. He further held that there is nothing on record to show that the subject needles were diverted for home consumption for which the adjudication called for dropping of the demand. 7. On appeal of Revenue against above re-adjudication order, learned Commissioner (Appeal) observed that both the aforesaid LOPs allow to manufacture and export syringe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 687/- in violation of LOP norms. Similarly, export of needles involved central excise duty of ₹ 33,20,546/- being sold in DTA. When the assessee did not comply to the LOP norms, needles exported being without authority of law, fate of exported goods was to be determined on the basis of evidence and excise duty was leviable. Failure to disclose all such facts to Revenue amounts to suppression of facts for which extended period of limitation was invokable. 11. On behalf of the Respondent it was submitted that syringes exported were with needles since needle was part thereof. When the appellant unit was de-bonded on 25.3.2004 and no demand existed, Show cause notice issued was time barred. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Needles during the period November, 96 to April, 2003 and issued 12,16,50,000 pcs of Cannulae and 20,49,03,815 pcs of Needles for the manufacture of finished goods. Out of such issue, 65,52,285 pcs of cannulae and 3,26,64,788 pcs of needles were claimed to be waste and scrap. 14. While Original LOP covered the goods syringes with or without needles, revised LOP covered the goods: (1) syringes with or without needles and (2) parts of syringes. Both the LOPs were subjected to certain conditions and the revised LOP was also issued to fulfil the terms and conditions of original LOP. As noticed in appeal No. C/580/2008 of the assessee disposed on 14.03.2014 that when the assessee had shown wastage and scrap of the imported material meant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
