Tax Management India. Com
                            Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals SMS News Articles Highlights
        Home        
 
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

General Optics (Asia) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry

2017 (9) TMI 780 - CESTAT CHENNAI

100% EOU - clearance to DTA - exemption under N/N. 51/96-Cus. dt. 23.7.96 - valuation - quantification of 50% of FOB value for DTA clearance - Held that: - the jurisdictional Commissioner in the appellant-assessee's own case, for earlier period, allowed DTA clearance based on the quantification fixed by the Development Commissioner - In the present case, the permission granted by the Development Commissioner has not been contested or varied. - Revenue also held a view that some of the goods .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nst the impugned order on this ground. - Eligibility of Night Vision Binocular for clearance to DTA - Held that: - appellant says that they do have specific permission dt. 27.11.98 from the Development Commissioner for clearance of specific number of Night Vision Binoculars to DTA. As such, we find no merit in the appeal by the Revenue on this issue also. - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/328/2009, Appeal No. E/425/2009 - Final Order No. 42034-42035/2017 - .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under Chapter 90 of CETA. They have imported various raw materials, components etc. without payment of duty under Notification No.52/2003-Cus. dt.31.3.2003. Similarly, they have procured indigenous goods also without payment of duty under Notification No.22/2003-CE dt. 31.3.2003 for the manufacture of their final products. The final products are exported as well as cleared for domestic market. A dispute arose regarding determination of duty liability of the appellant-assessee for clearances of s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing exemption under Customs Notification No.51/96-Cus. dt. 23.7.96 they have to pay back customs duty concession availed at the time of import of inputs, raw materials etc. in terms of Notification No.53/97-Cus. dt. 3.6.97. Condition No.7 of the said notification states that if finished goods manufactured using the imported items are not excisable, then customs duty equal to the amount leviable on the inputs should be paid by the assessee. Ld. counsel submitted that products manufactured by 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

oducts manufactured and cleared by the appellant-assessee to DTA are excisable. However, they are eligible for exemption notification No.51/96-Cus. which fixes the quantum of duty payable by EOUs in cases of clearance to DTA. In such situation, we find that there is no violation of condition of Notification No.53/97-Cus. The products are excisable but exempt. As such, they cannot be called non-excisable goods. We also note that the original authority confirmed the duty liability of the inputs on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iginal authority allowed the claim of the appellant-assessee following the decision of the Tribunal in Ginni International Ltd. Vs CCE Jaipur - 2002 (1390 ELT 172 (Tri.-Del). The said decision was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in 2007 (215) ELT A102 (SC). The Revenue in the present appeal contends that the facts of the present case are not similar to Ginni International (supra). We note that the Tribunal held that once the Development Commissioner gives due permission after .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mpugned order. 6. The next point agitated by Revenue is some of the goods cleared by the appellant-assessee to DTA are not similar to the goods which are exported by them. Revenue contends that cover and cuvetter glasses are not having optical properties and as such cannot be considered as similar goods exported by the appellant-assessee. On hearing both sides, we note that original authority has examined this issue in detail. We also note that vide letter dt. 22.7.2002, the jurisdictional offic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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