9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew of the admitted facts before the court below. 2. At the time of debonding, the appellant paid duty as per provisions applicable under CER, at the relevant time. 3. The assessee has contended that the stocks of finished goods lying as on the date of issue of NOC i.e. on 13.03.2008 was later on exported by them before final Debonding date. Since, the said stock was not cleared in DTA and was exported, therefore, there cannot be any question of demand of duty on such goods. The court below did not find any force in the above contention of the assessee. The documents viz. ARE-1, shipping bill, bill of lading, RG-1 register etc. indicate that these removals are after 25.04.2008 i.e. after issue of NOC by the department. Hence, the exports ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods, which were cleared by 100% EOU to DTA whether in terms of permission granted or in excess of permission granted." 4. In the light of aforesaid decision of Larger Bench of the Hon'ble CESTAT the Board has issued Circular No. 01/2004-Cus., dated 05.01.2004. The contents of Circular No.1/2004-Cus., dated 05.01.2004, are reproduced below: "Subject: Withdrawal of Board's Circular No.618/9/2002-CX, dated 13-2-2002-Removal of Goods by 100% EOU to DTA- Clarification Regarding Levy of duty on Removal of goods by 100% EOU to DTA. I am directed to draw your attention to Board's Circular No. 618/9/2002-CX dated 13-2-2002 on the above subject wherein it was clarified that prior to 11-5-2001, the clearances from EOUs if not allowed to be sold i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licable under the proviso to section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as also appropriate duty on the bonded capital goods and raw material is paid before the unit is allowed to be debonded. In the impugned order, it is observed - "5. I also find that on the issue, the Boards has issued Circular No. 8/2004-Cus., dated 28.01.2004, wherein in para 6, the Board has clarified that "Even where the above facility is extended and the unit allowed to debond it should be ensured that duty on the non-duty paid raw materials, non-duty paid capital goods and finished manufactured goods, is discharged before the unit is allowed to debond." 6. "I find the order in the case of CCE Vs. Solitare Machine Tools (P) Ltd. (supra) has been issued prior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it but a 100% EOU and being 100% EOU they have to follow the provisions of Foreign Trade Policy applicable at the relevant time. Hence the ratio of cases cited in this regard is not applicable in their case." 5. Thereafter, the Department issued a show cause notice for recovery of duty on the finished goods lying in stock as per RG-I register on the date of issue of NOC. But in this case, as per record, the goods were exported prior to issue of final debonding order and the ld. Counsel submits that no stock of finished goods was lying at the time of debonding. The appellants were required to pay appropriate duty of central excise as per the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Central Excise Act. 6. On the other hand, ld. AR has reiterated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
