EOU granted exemption for supplying Special Test Equipment in GSM Bands to Defence Electronic Research Lab

The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by a 100% Export-Oriented Unit (EOU) regarding exemption under Notification No. 10/97-CE for supplying Special Test Equipment in GSM Bands to Defence Electronic Research Laboratory. The Tribunal upheld the EOU's eligibility for exemption, rejected reclassification of equipment by the department, set aside the demand for excise duty, interest, and penalty, and did not address the issue of limitation due to finding the demand unsustainable. The appellant succeeded on merits, and the impugned order and demand were set aside, granting consequential relief.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Eligibility of 100% EOU to claim exemption under Notification No. 10/97-CE.
2. Classification of the GSM band equipment.
3. Demand for excise duty, interest, and penalty.
4. Applicability of the extended period for issuing Show Cause Notice.

Summary:

1. Eligibility of 100% EOU to claim exemption under Notification No. 10/97-CE:
The appellant, a 100% Export-Oriented Unit (EOU), supplied Special Test Equipment in GSM Bands to the Defence Electronic Research Laboratory (DERL) without paying excise duty, claiming exemption under Notification No. 10/97-CE. The department contested this, arguing that the exemption does not extend to 100% EOUs as per the proviso to Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal, however, found that the appellant is eligible for the exemption, supported by various judicial precedents and a CBEC circular clarifying that such exemptions apply to EOUs for computing Countervailing Duty (CVD) on Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) clearances.

2. Classification of the GSM band equipment:
The department reclassified the equipment under CETH 85279990, attracting a 5% basic customs duty (BCD), contrary to the appellant's classification under CETH 90304000, which is duty-free. The Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority had overstepped by reclassifying the goods, as the Show Cause Notice did not dispute the original classification. Thus, the reclassification was deemed unsustainable.

3. Demand for excise duty, interest, and penalty:
The original authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 62,81,173/- along with interest and an equal penalty. The Tribunal set aside this demand, noting that the appellant correctly claimed the exemption under Notification No. 10/97-CE. The Tribunal emphasized that the duty payable by an EOU should be determined as if the goods were imported, and since the BCD on the equipment was free, no excise duty was payable.

4. Applicability of the extended period for issuing Show Cause Notice:
The appellant argued that there was no suppression of facts, as they had informed the Range Officer about the transaction. The Tribunal, having found the demand unsustainable on merits, did not find it necessary to address the issue of limitation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and the demand for duty, interest, and penalty. The appeal succeeded on merits, granting consequential relief to the appellant.

---