9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedles'. They are holders of Customs Private Bonded Warehousing Licence and In-Bond Manufacturing Sanction Order No.146/2005 dt. 11/07/2005 for their EOU operations. The appellant approached the Superintendent of Customs, EOU, Bangalore and obtained CT-# certificate bearing No.951/2005 dt. 27/07/2005 for the duty-free procurement of item carrying description 'Pre-fabricated Construction complete with walls, doors and other accessories' in terms of exemption provided under Notification No.22/03-CE dt. 31/03/2003 as amended. The value of the said item was shown as Rs. 34,56,547/- and the duty forgone was Rs. 5,69,639/-. The said item was procured from a company called Rinac India Ltd., Bangalore. Subsequently, a show-cause notice dt. 14/03/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation for exemption. He further submitted that the Range Officer was fully satisfied about the utility of the impugned items for use in the manufacture of export goods. He further submitted that the said items were bonded under the supervision of the Customs Officer and are all put to use in the EOU premises and the same is also not in dispute. He further submitted that once this was accepted by the Department, then the Department cannot brush aside the certificate issued by the Range Officer and come to a finding that the said item was not used in the manufacturing activity. He further submitted that there is no allegation in the show-cause notice as well as in the impugned order that the impugned goods have been diverted or have not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eaffirmed by CESTAT in the case of Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. [2006(2000) ELT 545 (Tri. Bang.)]. He further submitted that with regard to the same goods, the Development Commissioner has accorded subsequent approval. Both the authorities have wrongly come to the conclusion that the subsequent approval relates to different goods but the fact of the matter is that there is no difference between the two items and the subsequent procurement of the same item was approved by the Development Commissioner and therefore, the duty cannot be demanded and the item procured against valid CT-3 certificate and duly warehoused and put to use in the EOU premises. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR for the Department defended the impugned order and submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pertinent to reproduce relevant para 3.1 of the said judgment. 3.1 The respondent are an agricultural EOU engaged in production of honey and Beewax a by-product for export. There is no dispute about the fact that the items, in question, are required for the cold room, which is a must for the storage and processing of honey. The only ground on which the department seeks to deny the benefit of the notification to the respondent is that since there is no definition of the term "capital goods" in the exemption notification, it is the definition of this term, as given in Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, which has to be adopted and that the goods, in question, are not covered by the definition of term "capital goods" as given in the Cenvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
