TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal sets aside penalty on manufacturers for goods cleared to SEZ units</h1> <h3>APTAR BEAUTY & HOME INDIA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE</h3> The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim and penalty imposition on manufacturers who cleared goods to SEZ units ... - Issues involved: Appeal against rejection of refund claim and imposition of penalty for clearance to SEZ units without executing bond or submitting letter of undertaking.Summary:The appellants, manufacturers of Metered Valves, Pump, and Ferrules Actuators, cleared goods to SEZ units under 'NIL' rate of duty without executing bond or submitting letter of undertaking as required by Central Excise Rules. After paying the duty and filing a refund claim, the claim was rejected by the Asst. Commissioner, who imposed a penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. The first appellate authority also rejected the appeal, leading to the current appeal.The appellant's counsel argued that the goods cleared to SEZ units should be considered as exports, and therefore duty should not be payable. They also highlighted the non-consideration of re-warehousing certificates by the lower authorities and cited relevant case laws and CBEC Circular No. 290/6/97-CX.The Departmental Representative contended that the refund claim was incorrect as the duty had already been paid by the appellants, falling under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The authorities had considered the appellants' debiting of the duty amount as payment, not a deposit.The Tribunal found that the goods cleared to SEZ units were not liable for duty, and any violation of rules could result in penalties, not duty payment. As the re-warehousing certificates were genuine and no dispute existed regarding the goods reaching SEZ units, the amount debited by the appellants could not be considered as duty payable. Therefore, the refund claim fell under the category specified in a relevant Board circular. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
