TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 rules in favor of appellants on duty exemption, clearance requirements, and limitation period</h1> The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the order and ruling in favor of the appellants. It held that the appellants, a 100% Export Oriented Unit, ... 100% EOU - Benefit of N/N. 82/92-CE - case of Revenue is that assessee is entitled for exemption only from Basic Customs Duty and not from CVD and SAD, it was also alleged in the show cause notice that the appellant is not entitled for exemption for the reason that proper procedure for the clearance of goods against ARO has not been followed by the appellants - Held that: - it can be seen that the appellants have substantially complied with the procedure prescribed for removal of goods under exemption against the ARO, therefore it cannot be said that the appellants have not followed the procedure. Accordingly, for this reason the exemption cannot be denied - reliance was paced in the case of LIPY LISY PHARMACEUTICALS P. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-VII [2004 (4) TMI 182 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], where it was held that the provisions of Notification No.30/97 and 82/92 should be read harmoniously and supplies against Advance Release Order issued under Para 7.4 of Export-Import Policy should be treated as eligible for exemption from additional duty of customs also - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Exemption from payment of Countervailing Duty (CVD) and Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No. 82/92-CE.2. Compliance with procedural requirements for clearance of goods against Advance Release Order (ARO).3. Validity of invoking the extended period of limitation for issuing the show cause notice.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Exemption from Payment of CVD and SAD:The appellants, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), cleared goods for home consumption without paying CVD and SAD, claiming exemption under Notification No. 82/92-CE. The department issued a show cause notice demanding duty on the grounds that the notification only exempts Basic Customs Duty, not CVD and SAD. The appellants argued that the issue was settled in favor of the assessee in the case of Lipy Lisy Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai-VII, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, stating that the notification should be interpreted harmoniously with the Export-Import Policy, which allows exemption from additional duties for goods cleared against advance licenses issued under Para 7.4 of the policy. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were eligible for exemption from CVD and SAD under Notification No. 82/92-CE.2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Clearance Against ARO:The department also contended that the appellants did not follow the prescribed procedure for clearing goods against the ARO. The appellants provided a detailed timeline of events demonstrating their compliance with the required procedures, including submission of ARO to jurisdictional authorities, removal of goods under AR3A, and timely submission of necessary documents. The Tribunal found that the appellants had substantially complied with the procedural requirements, and thus, the exemption could not be denied on this ground.3. Validity of Invoking Extended Period of Limitation:The department invoked the extended period of limitation, arguing that the appellants, being a 100% EOU, are governed under bond, and any duty liability is secured by the bond. The appellants argued that since they had followed the prescribed procedures, the department was aware of the facts, making the invocation of the extended period time-barred. However, since the Tribunal decided the case in favor of the appellants on merits, it did not find it necessary to address the limitation aspect in detail.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, stating that the appellants were entitled to exemption from CVD and SAD under Notification No. 82/92-CE and had substantially complied with the procedural requirements for clearance against ARO. Consequently, the appeals were allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
