Concessional duty on DTA clearances cannot be denied for delayed authorisation where eligibility had already accrued.

Concessional duty on Domestic Tariff Area clearances could not be denied merely because the Development Commissioner's authorisation was issued after the clearances, as the permission was treated as effective from the date entitlement accrued and the delay in issuing the letter did not affect substantive eligibility. The Revenue's objection regarding alleged job work for domestic units also failed, because no finding had been recorded on that aspect by the adjudicating authority or the Commissioner (Appeals), leaving no basis for interference. The Revenue's appeal was accordingly rejected and the relief granted to the respondent was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether concessional rate of duty on Domestic Tariff Area clearances could be denied because the Development Commissioner's authorisation was issued after the clearances were made. (ii) Whether the Revenue's grievance regarding job work for domestic units warranted interference when no finding had been recorded on that aspect.

Issue (i): Whether concessional rate of duty on Domestic Tariff Area clearances could be denied because the Development Commissioner's authorisation was issued after the clearances were made.

Analysis: The respondent had applied for permission for DTA sales and the authorisation was subsequently issued. The only dispute was that the letter granting permission was dated later than the date of clearances. The authorisation was treated as effective from the date on which entitlement accrued, and the delay in issuing the letter was held not to affect the substantive eligibility for concessional duty.

Conclusion: Concessional rate of duty could not be denied merely because the authorisation was issued later, and the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the Revenue's grievance regarding job work for domestic units warranted interference when no finding had been recorded on that aspect.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority had not considered the alleged job work aspect while confirming demand or imposing penalty, and the Commissioner (Appeals) therefore did not return any finding on that issue. In the absence of any substantive adjudication on that ground, no interference was called for.

Conclusion: The objection relating to job work did not succeed.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal failed, and the relief granted to the respondent was maintained.

---