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 →

Narasus Exports Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem

2015 (12) TMI 1002 - CESTAT CHENNAI

100% EOU - Job work - goods were ultimately exported by HLL - allegation that "Instant Coffee Powder" cleared to DTA by wrongly availing the benefit of Notification No.43/2001-CE (NT) dt. 26.6.2001 - Imposition of interest and equivalent penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules,2002 - Held that:- Appellant have chosen to supply to special category of buyers covered under Rule 19 (2) of the Central Excise Rules. Duty shall be payable only if the clearances are made to general category of buy .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tis mutandis. We also find that the goods were cleared under ARE-3 procedure to M/s. Blend Pack and receipt of the goods were accounted for by M/s. Blend Pack and intimation was sent to jurisdictional Commissioner of appellant s unit. Blend Pack is a job worker of Hindustan Level Ltd., (HLL) for further repacking and the goods were ultimately exported by HLL, which is not in dispute.

Appellant EOU cleared the goods under Notification No. 43/2001 which was issued under Rule 19 of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dent : Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) ORDER Per P.K. Choudhary The appeal is filed against the Order-in-Original dated 30.1.2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant is a Export Oriented Unit set up for manufacture of Instant Coffee Powder. Show Cause Notice dt. 17.9.2008 was issued to the appellant demanding duty on "Instant Coffee Powder" cleared to DTA by wrongly availing the benefit of Notification No.43/2001-CE (NT) dt. 26 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion No.43/2001-CE dt.26.6.2001 was issued under Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules As per clause (2) (ii) of the notification, exemption is allowed subject to fulfilment of condition that provisions of Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty For Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 shall be followed, mutatis mutandis. He further submits that adjudicating authority has denied the benefit on the ground that Rule 2 of Rules, 2001 shall apply to a manufacturer who intends .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he case of Paresh Chandra Chatterjee Vs State of Assam reported in (1962) 3 SCR 88 : AIR 1962 SC 167. (Ref. Page 24 of compilation of case law). He further submits that M/s.Blend Pack addressed a letter dt. 22.8.2007 to Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore III Division (Ref. Page 116 of Paper Book) seeking permission to procure the goods from the appellant by following Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods for Export) Rules, 2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

thority. He drew our attention to Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules as per Rule 19 (2) the goods can be removed without payment of duty from a factory of the producer or the manufacturer or from any other premises to for use in the processing of goods which are exported as maybe approved by Commissioner. He further submits that identical issue in denial of Notification No.47/94 wherein the Tribunal allowed the appeal and held that erstwhile Rule 13 is applicable to a 100% EOU. He relied the follow .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s Madras Radiators & Pressings Ltd.-1994 (69) ELT 409 (Tribunal) 4. Ld. advocate submits that in the aforecited Tribunal's decision in the case of Winsome Yarns Ltd. Vs CCE Chandigarh (supra) wherein similar benefit has been allowed under the existing Rule 19 wherein benefit of Notification No.43/2001-CE dt. 26.6.2001 has been extended. 5. Ld. A.R for the Revenue reiterated the findings of OIO. She submits that appellant being a 100% EOU whereas the goods were cleared to DTA without paym .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he goods were cleared again by HLL. She submits that the clearance of goods to M/s. Blend Pack is nothing but sale and Notification No.43/2001 is not applicable. She referred to page 144 of the paper book wherein Form A.R.E.2 is filed to submit that M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. has exported the goods under DEPB. Clearances of goods by HLL cannot be considered to have been made by 100% EOU. She relied on the following citations :- (1) Leather Crafts (India) Pvt. Ltd.-2011 (274) ELT 379 (2) Amod Stam .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fication No. 43/2001-CE dated 26.06.2001 was issued under Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules. As per clause 2(ii) of the notification, exemption is allowed subject to fulfilment of the condition that provisions of the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001, shall be followed mutatis mutandis. We also find that the goods were cleared under ARE-3 procedure to M/s. Blend Pack and receipt of the goods were accounted for by M/s. Blen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y permitted by the Development Commissioner into DTA. In respect of permitted quantity, it is claimed that the appellant supplied the same as inputs to manufacturer of excisable goods who ultimately exported the said product. For this purpose, it is claimed that they produced CT-2 certificate issued in favour of the recipient unit by the officer of the in-charge of the recipient unit. On the basis of the said certificate it was claimed that they have effected the clearances duty free in terms of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Rule 19 does not exclude 100% E.O.U. from its purview. He also relies on the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Kurt-O-John Shoe Components (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex & Cus., Noida, reported in 2003 (154) E.L.T. 651 (Tri.-Del.) and in the case of Paras Fab International v. CCE, Jaipur, reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T. 549 (Tri.-Del.) which held that Rule 13 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 was applicable in respect of clearances made from 100% E.O.U. He also relies on the decision of .....

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