TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded period of limitation - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- The exemption under N/N. 23/2003-CE is not required and further that the goods cleared in DTA, if imported, were also exempt from SAD under Sr. No.1 of N/N. 29/2010-CUS dated 27-2-2010 up to 16-3-2012 and thereafter under Sr. No.2 of N/N. 21/2012-Cus dated 17-3-2012 since the same are pre-packaged goods for retail sale to which provisions of Legal Metrology Act and Rules apply. Therefore, excise duty equal to SAD payable under the Proviso to Section 3 (1) of the Central Excise Act 1944, will be NIL. Consequently, the exemption under N/N. 23/2003-CE is not required. It is thus clear that exemption from Excise duty equal to SAD under Notification No.23/2003-CE is not req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts or contravention with intent to evade and the larger period of limitation is inapplicable in the present case. The impugned order is not tenable both on merits and on limitation - appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. RAJU , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri JC Patel , Advocate for the Appellant Shri AR Kanani , Superintendent , Superintendent ( AR ) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR : Briefly the facts of the case are that during the period 2009-2010 to June-2012, the Appellant, Polymer Technologies International, were functioning as 100% EOU and were manufacturing Intraocular Lens falling under Chapter 90 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s follows: 3. Aids and Implements used by handicapped persons (18) Intra-ocular lens used for cataract operation. 2.2 The show cause notice accordingly demanded Central Excise duty equal to SAD amounting to Rs.89.51 lakhs under Section 11A (1)/A(5) of the Central Excise Act 1944 read with B-17 Bond executed by the Appellant at the time of taking EOU license. 2.3 The Appellant replied to the said show cause notice by their letters dated 15-6-2015 and 20-5-2016 and contested the Show Cause Notice both on merits and limitation. On merits it was submitted that the goods were otherwise exempted from SAD if imported into India and consequently under the Proviso to Section 3 (1) of the Central Excise Act 1944, the excise duty payable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R Kanani, Superintendent learned AR appearing for the revenue relied upon the finding given in the impugned order. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. The issues arise for consideration in the present Appeals are as follows: a) Whether Excise duty equal to Special Additional Duty of customs (SAD) under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 was payable on Intraocular Lens cleared by the Appellant in DTA during 2009-10 to June 2012 when the Appellant were 100% EOU, b) Whether the Show Cause Notice dated 2-6-2015 issued under Section 11A (1)/ (5) of the Central Excise Act 1944 is without jurisdiction since the said Section 11A (5) stood omitted with effect from 14-5-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Act 1944, will be NIL. Consequently, the exemption under Notification No.23/2003-CE is not required and further that the goods cleared in DTA, if imported, were also exempt from SAD under Sr. No.1 of Notification No. 29/2010-CUS dated 27-2-2010 up to 16-3-2012 and thereafter under Sr. No.2 of Notification No. 21/2012-Cus dated 17-3-2012 since the same are pre-packaged goods for retail sale to which provisions of Legal Metrology Act and Rules apply. Therefore, excise duty equal to SAD payable under the Proviso to Section 3 (1) of the Central Excise Act 1944, will be NIL. Consequently, the exemption under Notification No.23/2003-CE is not required. 6.1 It is thus clear that exemption from Excise duty equal to SAD under Notification No.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of exit from EOU. Accordingly, it is not a case of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts or contravention with intent to evade and the larger period of limitation is inapplicable in the present case. Reliance is placed in this behalf on the following decisions: (a) Virgo Valves Controls P. Ltd v CCE 2022 (5) TMI 1302-CESTAT Mumbai In this judgment it is held that where De-bonding was done after verification by Central Excise and issuance of No dues certificate, the larger period of limitation cannot apply. (b) DharampalLalchand Chug v CCE- 2015(323) ELT 753 In this judgment it is held that even demand in terms of the Bond has to be within limitation period. (c) John Deere (I) P Ltd v CCE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
