Strict compliance for EOU DTA clearances upheld, while penalties were deleted for lack of active participation.

Exemption for DTA clearances by a 100% EOU was held to require strict compliance with the notification and Foreign Trade Policy conditions, including proof that the cleared goods were similar or commercially interchangeable with exported goods. On the facts, that condition was not established and the appellant's admissions supported denial of the exemption, so the duty demand, interest and appropriation of amounts already deposited were sustained. Penalty on the company was set aside, and personal penalties on employees were also deleted because Rule 26 requires proof of a positive act or active participation linked to confiscable goods; mere knowledge of the clearances was insufficient.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the DTA clearance exemption for finished goods and scrap, and whether the demand of duty, interest and appropriation of amounts already deposited were sustainable. (ii) Whether the penalties imposed on the company and the individual employees were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the DTA clearance exemption for finished goods and scrap, and whether the demand of duty, interest and appropriation of amounts already deposited were sustainable.

Analysis: The exemption governing DTA clearances from a 100% EOU was held to be subject to strict compliance with the conditions in the notification and the Foreign Trade Policy. The Tribunal found that the goods cleared in DTA were not shown, on reliable evidence, to be similar or commercially interchangeable with the exported goods, and that the appellant's own admissions supported this conclusion. It also held that the exemption could not be claimed where the prescribed conditions, including the policy restrictions on DTA sales, were not satisfied. Since the duty and interest had been paid after departmental detection, the demand and appropriation were maintained.

Conclusion: The duty demand, interest demand, and appropriation of amounts already deposited were upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalties imposed on the company and the individual employees were sustainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the penalty on the company under Section 11AC and Rule 25 could not survive in the facts of the case and set it aside. It further held that penalty under Rule 26 on the employees required proof of positive acts of omission or commission connected with goods liable to confiscation, and mere knowledge of the company's clearances was insufficient. As no such positive role was established against the employees, the personal penalties were unsustainable.

Conclusion: The penalties imposed on the company and the individual employees were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The duty liability was sustained, but the penal consequences were deleted, resulting in only partial relief to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption notifications for EOU DTA clearances must be strictly construed, and penalty under Rule 26 requires proof of active participation or a positive act linked to confiscable goods, not mere knowledge.

---