TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 978X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... status and not required to obtain permission for removal of goods in DTA. Held that:- The Ld. Commissioner has recorded that the appellant have not produced any evidence that they are holding “two star export house” status, therefore, the matter needs re-consideration on this issue. However, the appellant have submitted the certificate of two star export house status with the present appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Madhusuthanan, Advocate For Respondent (s): Shri L. Patra, Asst. Commr, AR ORDER Per : Mr. Ramesh Nair The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a 100% EOU and cleared by-products, namely, spent salt and spent solvent at concessional rate of Central Excise Duty by availing the benefit of Notification No. 23/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003. The case of the department is tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 323 ELT 374 (Tri-Mum) (ii) Commissioner vs. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (2011) 269 ELT A147 (SC) (iii) CCE, Hyderabad-I vs. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd (2010) 259 ELT 673 (AP) (iv) CCE, Hyderabad vs. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd (2010) 249 ELT 415 (Tri.-Bang) (v) CCE, Hyderabad vs. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd (2006) 200 ELT 236 (Tri.-Bang.) (vi) CCE, Hyderabad vs. Lee Pharma Pvt. Ltd (2010) 252 ELT 557 (Tri.-B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by-products. Therefore, on this basis, the appellant could not be given any relief. He further submits that even if the said para is applicable but it provides intimation to the department which they failed to give any intimation. He also submits that the appellant before the lower authorities did not submit any proof that they are holding that two star export house status, therefore, the claim is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to re-consider the issue of two star export house status with reference to the para 6.39.13 of the Handbook of Procedure. The appellant s submission is also that the spent solvent is not excisable goods, therefore, the permission is not required and no duty can be demanded. This issue also needs to be reconsidered by the adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
