Tribunal rules in favor of 100% EOU, setting aside excise duty demand under Notification No. 55/91-CE.

The Tribunal set aside the adjudication order by the Commissioner of Central Excise in favor of the appellant, a 100% EOU, in a case involving the demand for additional excise duty under Notification No. 55/91-CE. Citing precedents, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, clearing them from the demands for the specified periods, as there was no intent to evade duty and the demands were deemed time-barred. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, granting the appellant consequential relief, if applicable.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge against adjudication order by Commissioner of Central Excise.
2. Demand for additional excise duty under Notification No. 55/91-CE, dated 25-7-1991.
3. Bar on demands due to time limitation.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, a 100% EOU engaged in manufacturing yarn and fabric, challenged the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The appellant cleared goods to DTA after availing benefits under Notification No. 8/97-C.E., dated 1-3-1997, considering deemed export. The Tribunal referred to the case of Ginni International Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur, where the issue was settled in favor of the appellant. Consequently, the demand for the period September 1999 to April 2000 was set aside.

2. The second issue pertained to the payment of additional excise duty under Notification No. 55/91-CE, dated 25-7-1991. Initially, the demand was confirmed based on a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Vardhman Polytex Ltd. v. UOI. However, the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India set aside the decision in Vardhman Polytex Ltd. Consequently, the demand for additional excise duty was also set aside.

3. The appellant argued that both demands were time-barred as they were clearing goods to DTA with permission from the Development Commissioner, precluding any allegation of suppression against them. The Tribunal noted that no suppression could be alleged against the appellant, as there was no intent to evade duty. The demands for the period September 1999 to April 2000 and 1-3-2000 to 31-8-2000 were considered time-barred. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief, if any.

---