9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 58 of the Customs Act, 1996 and also permission under section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962 for manufacture under bond. Notification no. 52/03 CE dated 31/3/2003 and its predecessor notification no. 53/97 CUS dated 3/6/1997 exempted the specified goods, when imported into India or procured from a public or a private bonded warehouses, by a 100 per cent EOU for manufacture of articles for export out of India from the whole of the duty of the customs leviable under first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and also from the additional customs duty leviable under section 3 of the said customs tariff, 1975. By section 116 of Finance Act, 1999 an additional levy of Rs. 1 per liter was imposed on HSD with effect from 1/3/1999 and subseque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order holding that the duty was not demandable from the respondent, as it is M/s. ESSAR Oils who had imported HSD. Against this order of the Commissioner (appeals), these appeals have been filed by the Revenue. In respect of the Revenue's appeal, the respondent have filed cross-objections. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri R.K. Grover, ld. DR, assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal and pleaded that notification no. 52/03CUS dated 31/3/2003 and its predecessor notification no. 53/1997 CUS dated 3/6/1997 exempted the goods, procured by a 100% EOU either by direct import or from the bonded warehouse, only from the basic custom duty and additional custom duty leviable under Customs Act; that this notification did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rh Vs. Rana Polycot Ltd. reported in 2011 (265) ELT 340 (Tri-Del) wherein the Tribunal relying upon its earlier judgment in the case of STI India Limited Vs. CCE-Indore reported in 2008 (222) ELT 112 (Tri-Del) and also larger bench's judgment in the case of Paras Fab International Vs. CCE-Kandla reported in 2010 (256) ELT 556 (Tri-LB) had held that the additional customs duty leviable under section 116 of the Finance Act, 1999 is not recoverable from the 100 per cent EOU, which had procured the HSD from importer who had cleared the imported HSD for warehousing. He pleaded that above judgment of the Tribunal is squarely applicable to the facts of this case and hence, there is no merit in the Revenue's appeal. He pleaded that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kable. In this case if it is not invokable, the demand would be time barred. We find that the same issue relating to limitation was involved in case of CCE-Chandigarh Vs. Rana Polycot Limited (Supra) and the Tribunal in para 9 of the order had held that extended limitation period is not invokable. 7. Therefore, irrespective of whether the additional customs duty leviable under section 116 of the Finance Act, 1994 is recoverable from the respondent or not, the demand is time barred. 8. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the question to be answered is as to whether the additional customs duty leviable under section 116 of the Finance Act, 1999 read with section 168 of the Finance Act, 2003 can be recovered from the respondent wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
