Tribunal Rules in Favor of Appellant on NCCD Issue, Overturns Duty Demand

The Tribunal held that the appellant is not liable to pay National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) on goods supplied to a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), citing established precedent. The Tribunal set aside the duty demand against the appellant and confirmed another demand for goods cleared to job workers, excusing the appellant's initial non-payment due to a bona fide belief. Emphasizing the specific circumstances, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and overturning the impugned order.

---

---

Issues involved:
Whether the appellant is liable to pay National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) when goods are supplied to 100% EOU.

Analysis:
The issue in this case revolves around the liability of the appellant to pay National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) when supplying goods to a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU). The appellant's counsel referred to the case of JBF Industries Ltd. Vs CCE Vapi 2009, along with the judgment of Commissioner of Customs vs Reliance Industries Ltd. 2011 upheld by the Supreme Court. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative argued that the exemption notification under which the goods were supplied did not cover NCCD exemption, citing the judgment of Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise-Meerut-I 2011.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal referred to the case of JBF Industries Ltd. where it was held that NCCD is not leviable on goods cleared to 100% EOU. The Tribunal set aside the duty demand against the appellant based on this precedent. Another demand for NCCD was confirmed for goods cleared to job workers, but the appellant, under a bona fide belief, had not paid it initially. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument, considering the absence of any mala fide intent and set aside the penalties imposed. The Tribunal, following the precedent, concluded that the appellant is not liable to pay NCCD on goods supplied to 100% EOU, thereby allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the established precedent that NCCD is not applicable to goods cleared to 100% EOU. The judgment differentiated the present case from the one cited by the Revenue, emphasizing the specific circumstances involved. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and ruling in favor of the appellant.

---