Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana Versus M/s Aarti International

2015 (10) TMI 603 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

100% EOU - HSD had been procured from M/s. ESSAR Oils who had imported the same and cleared the same for warehousing. - Denial of exemption claim - Demand of differential duty - Levy of additional duty of customs - Invocation of larger period of limitation - Held that:- duty should have been recovered from M/s. ESSAR Oil and not from the respondent - irrespective of whether the additional customs duty leviable under section 116 of the Finance Act, 1994 is recoverable from the respondent or not, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted:- 11-5-2015 - Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) And S K Mohanty, Member (J) For the Appellant : Shri R K Grover, DR For the Respondent : Shri R Santhanam, Adv ORDER Per Rakesh Kumar The facts leading to filing of these appeals by the Revenue are, in brief, as under: 1.1 The Respondent are 100 per cent EOU engaged in manufacture of cotton yarn in their factory at Vishwakarma Chowk, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana. The respondent had been issued a private bonded warehouses licensed under section 58 of the Custom .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 ₹ 1 per liter was imposed on HSD with effect from 1/3/1999 and subsequently this levy was enhanced to ₹ 1.5 per liter by section 168 of the Finance Act, 2003. The notification no. 52/2003 CE dated 31/3/2003 and predecessor notification no. 53/97 CUS dated 3/6/1997 did not exempt the HSD from the levy under section 116 of the Finan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that since the HSD procured by the respondent was not exempt Under section 116 of the Finance Act, 1999 as amended by section 168 of the Finance Act, 2003, differential duty totalling ₹ 11,37,864/- would be recoverable from the respondent. It is on this basis that after issue of show cause notice, the Joint Commissioner by two separate orders confirmed the total duty demand of ₹ 11,37,864/- against the Respondent along with interest on it under section 28AB and imposed penalty of eq .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 not exe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the HSD and had cleared for warehousing under into bond bill of entry; that in this regard he relies upon the para 34 of Chapter 3 titled "procedure for clearance for imported and exported goods" in the CBEC's Custom Manual of Instructions issued on 4/9/2001; that according to this circular, in case of the goods cleared for warehousing, the duty is payable at the time of ex-bond clearance of the goods at the rate of duty applicable at the time of ex-bond clearance, that since it is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

garh 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 procure .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

limitation period is not applicable, the duty demand has been raised beyond normal limitation period and hence, the demand is time barred. In this regard, he pointed out to the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Rana Polycot Ltd. (supra) wherein the Tribunal had rejected the revenue's appeal holding that the demand is time barred. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. In this case, the respondent had procured the HSD from ESSAR Oil under e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version