100% EOU using SFIS scrips for carpet duty payment satisfies legal obligations under Central Excise Act

CESTAT Mumbai held that 100% EOU clearing carpets to DTA satisfied duty payment obligations by utilizing SFIS scrips instead of cash payment. The tribunal found that debiting SFIS scrips for duty amounts constituted valid payment under Central Excise Act and Foreign Trade Policy provisions. The revenue's demand for additional duty payment and CENVAT credit reversal was rejected. The impugned order was set aside and appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants.

---

---

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

1. Whether the clearance of goods manufactured by a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) under the Served From India Scheme (SFIS) constitutes a payment of excise duty for the purpose of applicability of Notifications No. 52/2003-Customs and No. 22/2003-Central Excise, both dated 31.03.2003.

2. Whether the utilization of SFIS scrips by the appellants to pay excise duty on the final product cleared to DTA amounts to fulfillment of duty payment obligations under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

3. Whether the appellants' procurement of raw materials duty-free under the said notifications is permissible when the finished goods are cleared to DTA under SFIS without payment of excise duty in cash.

4. The scope and applicability of Section 3 (proviso) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the interplay of relevant notifications and the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) with respect to duty liability on goods cleared by EOUs to DTA.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1 & 2: Whether clearance under SFIS by debiting duty credit scrips amounts to payment of excise duty for applicability of Notifications No. 52/2003-Cus. and No. 22/2003-C.E.

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Central Excise Act, 1944, Section 3 (proviso) mandates that excise duty on goods manufactured by 100% EOUs cleared to DTA shall be equal to customs duty leviable on like imported goods. Notifications No. 52/2003-Cus. and No. 22/2003-C.E. provide exemption from duty on inputs procured by EOUs subject to conditions, including payment of duty on finished goods cleared to DTA. The Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) permits utilization of duty credit scrips such as SFIS for payment of excise duty on clearances to DTA.

Judicial precedents relied upon include:

• Voltamp Transformers Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, where the Tribunal held that debiting SFIS scrips does not amount to exemption but is a mode of payment of duty.
• Tanfac Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Customs, where the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, upheld by the Supreme Court, held that debiting of export promotion scrips is a mode of duty payment, not exemption.
• Universal Power Transformers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, where the Tribunal affirmed that debits in SFIS scrips constitute payment of duty.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined the legal provisions and held that the utilization of SFIS scrips by the appellants to discharge excise duty on carpets cleared to DTA is a valid mode of duty payment. The Tribunal emphasized that such debits in SFIS scrips do not amount to exemption from duty but fulfill the duty liability under the Act and notifications.

The Tribunal noted that the impugned order failed to appreciate this principle and erroneously held that the appellants had not paid duty. The Tribunal referred to paragraph 3.6.4.10 of the FTP, which expressly permits duty credit scrips for payment of excise duty on domestic clearances.

The Tribunal also analyzed the notifications and concluded that the exemption on inputs is contingent upon payment of duty on finished goods cleared to DTA, which the appellants have complied with by debiting SFIS scrips.

Key Evidence and Findings: The appellants submitted invoices showing duty debit details on the face of the invoices, demonstrating payment of duty through SFIS scrips. The Tribunal accepted this as evidence of discharge of duty liability.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principles from the cited precedents and statutory provisions to the facts, concluding that the appellants had effectively paid excise duty on carpets cleared to DTA by debiting SFIS scrips, thus entitling them to duty-free procurement of inputs under the notifications.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that since no cash duty was paid, the appellants had not discharged duty liability, and hence the exemption on inputs was not available. The Tribunal rejected this, relying on authoritative precedents and the FTP provisions that recognize duty credit scrips as valid duty payment.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that clearance of goods under SFIS by debiting duty credit scrips amounts to payment of excise duty, thereby making the appellants eligible for duty-free procurement of inputs under the relevant notifications.

Issue 3: Whether procurement of raw materials duty-free under Notifications No. 52/2003-Cus. and No. 22/2003-C.E. is permissible when finished goods are cleared to DTA under SFIS without cash payment of duty.

Legal Framework and Precedents: The notifications provide exemption from duty on inputs used for manufacture of goods for export by EOUs, subject to payment of duty on clearance to DTA. The proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act requires payment of duty equal to customs duty on goods cleared to DTA by EOUs.

The Tribunal referred to the impugned order where the Commissioner had held that exemption on inputs is not available if the finished goods are cleared to DTA at nil rate of duty, emphasizing that the exemption benefits are confined to exported goods and not to goods cleared to DTA without duty payment.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's view that payment by SFIS scrips does not constitute payment of duty. It held that since SFIS scrips are recognized by the FTP and the CBEC circular as a mode of duty payment, the appellants' procurement of inputs duty-free is justified.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal relied on the invoices and the circular No. 973/7/2013-CX dated 04.09.2013 clarifying that goods cleared by debiting duty scrips are not exempted goods, and no reversal of CENVAT credit is required.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal framework to the facts, concluding that the appellants' procurement of inputs duty-free under the notifications is valid since they have discharged duty on finished goods cleared to DTA by debiting SFIS scrips.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's contention that the appellants did not pay duty was rejected based on the legal recognition of SFIS scrips as a mode of duty payment.

Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the appellants are entitled to procure raw materials duty-free under the notifications, given that duty on finished goods cleared to DTA was paid via SFIS scrips.

Issue 4: Scope and applicability of Section 3 proviso of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and interplay with notifications and FTP regarding duty liability on goods cleared by EOUs to DTA.

Legal Framework: Section 3 proviso mandates that EOUs clearing goods to DTA pay duty equal to customs duty leviable on like imported goods. Notifications No. 52/2003-Cus. and No. 22/2003-C.E. provide input duty exemptions subject to payment of duty on finished goods cleared to DTA.

The FTP provides for utilization of duty credit scrips such as SFIS for payment of excise duty on domestic clearances.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal interpreted the proviso to Section 3 as requiring payment of duty on finished goods cleared to DTA, which can be discharged by cash or by utilizing duty credit scrips as per FTP. The Tribunal emphasized that the notifications and FTP must be read harmoniously to give effect to the scheme of duty exemption on inputs and duty payment on finished goods.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the appellants complied with the proviso by paying duty through SFIS scrips, consistent with the FTP and CBEC circular clarifications.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal provisions to conclude that the appellants' clearance of carpets to DTA with duty discharged via SFIS scrips satisfies the proviso to Section 3 and the conditions of the notifications.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument that duty must be paid in cash was rejected in light of the statutory and policy framework allowing duty credit scrips as a mode of payment.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the appellants' mode of payment of duty complies with the proviso to Section 3 and the conditions of the relevant notifications and FTP.

Significant Holdings:

"The utilization of SFIS scrips by debiting the same for an amount equal to such duty has been treated as fulfillment of the obligation of an assessee/the appellants 100% EOU, for payment of applicable duty."

"Debits made in SFIS would not amount to exemption from payment of duty."

"The debit of any amount under the DEPB Scheme is a mode of payment of duty on the imported goods and cannot be treated as exempted goods."

"The benefit of exemption under Notifications No. 52/2003-Cus. and No. 22/2003-C.E. is available only for goods exported and not for goods cleared for DTA sale at Nil rate of duty. However, where duty is discharged by debiting SFIS scrips, it amounts to payment of duty."

"The appellants have discharged the applicable excise duty by way of debiting these SFIS scrips tendered by such buyers. Therefore, the demand of duty on inputs consumed in such final products as claimed in the SCNs is not sustainable."

The Tribunal's final determination was to set aside the impugned order dated 30.04.2012 and allow the appeals filed by the appellants, holding that clearance of goods by 100% EOU under SFIS with duty paid by debiting SFIS scrips constitutes valid payment of excise duty, entitling the appellants to procure inputs duty-free under the relevant notifications.

---