TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Notification 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. 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. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Rules,2002. Hence the present appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that Notification 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 to avail of the benefit of a notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 5A of Central Excise Act, 1944. He submits that the adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m 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 following citations :- 1) Kurt-O-John Shoe Components (I) Ltd. Vs CCE Noida-2003 (154) ELT 651 (Tri.-Del.) 2) Paras Fab International Vs CCE Jaipur-2003 (153) ELT 549 (Tri.-Del.) 3) Alsa Marine Harvests Ltd. Vs CC Visakhapatnam-2003 (158) ELT 741 (Tri.-Bang.) 4) Kurt O'John Shoe Components (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Noida-2003 (158) ELT 472 (Tri.-Del.) 5) Winsome Yar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een made by 100% EOU. She relied on the following citations :- (1) Leather Crafts (India) Pvt. Ltd.-2011 (274) ELT 379 (2) Amod Stampings Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC Kandla-2015 (318) ELT 468 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 6. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. In the present case, the 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 buyers. We agree with the submission of the learned Advocate that Rule 19 does not exclude the clearances from 100% EOU from its purview. We find that Notification No. 43/2001-CE dated 26.06.2001 was issued under Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules. As per claus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 26-6-2001. The original authority held that as a 100% E.O.U. they are governed by special provisions and, therefore, they cannot avail the benefit under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules and the said order has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Learned Advocate submits that as a 100% E.O.U., clearances effected by them to DTA were within the permissible limit as per EXIM Policy. 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.-De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
