TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in dispute that duty free import and indigenous raw materials were used in manufacture of finished products Appellants being 100% EOU discharged Central excise duty on goods, cleared to local market, amount equal to customs duty and therefore, separate demand of custom duty on raw materials would not sustain It was evident from record that Excise Officers detained seized goods, which was attempted to divert in local market So, confiscation of goods was justified and accordingly imposition of redemption fine was warranted Impugned order modified Demand of Central Excise duty and customs duties on raw materials hereby set aside Decided partially in favour of Assesse. - Appeal No : C/38/2009, E/253/2009 - Order No. A/10537-10538 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and M/s. Dooars Transport Ltd. transporter filed appeals before the Tribunal against the said adjudication order. By the Final Order No. A/2478 to 2750/WZB/AHD/2007 dated 24-10-2007 the Tribunal remanded the matter with certain direction to quantify the demand of duties and set aside the penalties imposed on the Appellants and Director. By the Impugned Order, the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs -Vapi, confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty of ₹ 15,59,341.00/- on the clearance of finished goods PTY to the quantity of ₹ 15,967.300 kgs, diverted in local market and appropriated the amount of ₹ 17,57,286.00/- as paid by the appellants. There is also demand of Central Excise duty of ₹ 1,65,007.00/- and cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t-II v/s. Gold Multifab Ltd. reported in 2008 (2320 E.L.T. 753 (Tri.- Ahmd.) 8. Vandevi Texturisers Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Commissioner of C.EX., Surat reported in 2007 (220) E.L.T. 289 (Tri. Ahmd.) 9. Opal Fabrics v/s. Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat reported in 2004 (164) E.L.T. 70(Tri. Mum) 5. Regarding the imposition of redemption fine, the Learned Advocate submits that goods have already been exported and therefore, the confiscation and imposition of redemption fine on the exported goods cannot be sustained. He submits that the Tribunal already held in the remand order that the appellant is not responsible for the diversion of the goods. Hence, it is submitted that the imposition of redemption fine is not warranted. 6. On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ized 399 cartons were subsequently cleared for export, in which case duty liabilities in respect of the said goods would not arise. However, Shri Shah fairly admits that said factor was not before Commissioner inasmuch as the goods were subsequently redeemed and exported and pleads that for verifying the above, the matter may be remanded to Commissioner. It is seen that the said goods were released to the appellant on payment of fine by the Department without insisting on duty payment. If the same have subsequently been exported, the duty liabilities in respect of the same would not arise. However, for the purposes of verifying the above statements of the appellant, we remand the matter to the Commissioner and if the goods stand exported, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terials were used in the manufacture of the finished products. Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides the duty is to be levied on goods as specified in the First Schedule and the Second Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Proviso to Section 3 (1) (b) of the said Act provides that the duties of excise, which shall be levied and collected on any excisable goods, which are produced or manufactured by a 100% EOU and brought to any other place in India shall be an amount equal to the aggregate of the duties of customs, which could be leviable under the Customs Act, 1962 or any other law on like goods produced or manufacture outside in the India, if, imported in India. In the present case, the appellants a 100% EOU discha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
