9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notices for confirmation of demand. Resultantly, the petitioners failed to persuade the said authority to refund a sum of Rs. 45,74,285/which is a total of the demand covered under three separate show cause notices in respect of which said three impugned orders came to be passed. 2. Facts in brief are as under. The petitioners are engaged in manufacturing various dyes and intermediates. They had a Export Oriented manufacturing unit situated at Bharuch. On such manufacture and clearance of goods, the petitioners would receive various benefits as an EOU, one of them being reimbursement of central sales tax on goods purchased by the petitioners and utilised for such manufacturing activity. Such reimbursement was granted at the relevant time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... FTP "Domestic Tariff Area(DT)" means area within India which is outside SEZs and EPU/EHTP/STB/BTP. Therefore CST refund on supplies from EOU to EOU are inadmissible. This has resulted in incorrect grant of CST amount. c) As per para 2(a) of Appx14II in the relevant period the supplies from DTA to EOU must be utilized by them for production of goods meant for export and/or utilized for export of services and may include raw material components, consumables, packing material, capital goods, spares, material handling equipment etc., on which CST has been actually paid by EOU. Therefore proportionate CST amount involved in DTA clearances was in admissible. d) The unit was given opportunity to appear for personal hearing on 07.08.2015, 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he authority made fleeting observation on the inadmissible portion of the petitioners' reimbursement which runs counter to the judgment of this Court in case of Asahi Songwon Colors Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2017 (356) ELT 532. 4. In the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents, basic aspects remain uncontested. The petitioners' assertion that without depositing the disputed amount, the petitioners' request for debonding would not have been accepted, remains virtually admitted. Even otherwise when the petitioners continued to oppose the demands raised in the show cause notices, their mere act of depositing the disputed amount under protest would not enable the authorities to close the show cause notices on the groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
