TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the appeal was not maintainable for want of proper authorization under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) Whether a 100% export oriented undertaking was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 2/95-CE dated 4-1-1995 in respect of goods cleared into India without the requisite permission under the governing rules and policy framework.
Issue (i): Whether the appeal was not maintainable for want of proper authorization under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: The Committee of Commissioners had recorded a detailed opinion that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not legal, proper and correct, and authorized the filing of the appeal. The requirement under Section 35B(2) is the formation of an opinion that the impugned order is not legal or proper. The objection based on the absence of authorization was distinguished from the facts of the cited precedent, where no such independent application of mind was reflected. Here, the recorded reasons showed consideration of the material and a conscious decision to appeal.
Conclusion: The preliminary objection to maintainability was rejected, and the appeal was held to be properly authorized.
Issue (ii): Whether a 100% export oriented undertaking was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 2/95-CE dated 4-1-1995 in respect of goods cleared into India without the requisite permission under the governing rules and policy framework.
Analysis: For the period in question, duty on clearances by a 100% EOU was governed by the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as it then stood. The expression "allowed to be sold in India" had to be read with Chapter VA of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the export policy governing EOUs. Permission from the proper authority was essential for treating such goods as goods allowed to be sold in India. As no such permission had been obtained, the clearances could not qualify for the concessional notification. The benefit of the notification was therefore unavailable, and the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on duty, interest and penalty could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 2/95-CE was denied and the Revenue's appeal was allowed on merits.
Final Conclusion: The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and the adjudicating authority's order was restored, leaving the Revenue with the benefit of the impugned appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: For a 100% export oriented undertaking, concessional treatment under a notification tied to goods "allowed to be sold in India" is available only when removal into India is permitted in accordance with the governing statutory rules and policy regime; absent such permission, the concessional notification cannot be invoked.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
