Concessional excise duty on CT-3 procured inputs: "deemed imported" claim rejected; exemption under Notif. 23/2003-CE restored.

Denial of concessional duty under Sl. No. 3 of Notif. No. 23/2003-CE on the premise that the inputs were "deemed imported" due to CT-3 procurement from another unit was held unsustainable. The Tribunal found no evidence that the raw materials were sourced from an EOU or that any EOU-to-EOU transfer was treated as export-obligation fulfilment, and held that the notification condition concerns whether inputs had not undergone customs-import procedures, not their geographic origin. Valid domestic clearances of the supplier's goods, with duty discharged or exemption properly availed under the Central Excise Act, 1944, satisfied the condition; the cited precedent did not support treating inputs as imported. The demand and denial of exemption were set aside and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether the benefit of concessional duty treatment under serial no. 3 of notification no. 23/2003-CE (as amended) for an export oriented unit's clearance to domestic tariff area could be denied on the premise that the finished goods were manufactured from "raw materials" treated as "deemed to be imported", merely because the supplier allegedly availed "deemed export" benefits.

(ii) Whether, on the record, there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the appellant's raw materials were procured from an export oriented unit and/or were "imported" so as to fail the condition requiring manufacture wholly from raw materials "produced or manufactured in India".

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Denial of exemption/concession under serial no. 3 of notification no. 23/2003-CE on a "deemed import" theory for raw materials

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court examined denial of the notification benefit for domestic tariff area clearances by an export oriented unit, where eligibility under serial no. 3 depended on compliance with the stated conditions, including that the finished goods be produced or manufactured wholly from raw materials "produced or manufactured in India", and cleared into domestic tariff area in accordance with the specified policy provisions.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the adjudicating authority's reliance on observations relating to the deeming fiction applicable to finished goods cleared by an export oriented unit into domestic tariff area (treated as "imports" only for the purpose of measuring duty liability) was misplaced for determining the character of "raw materials" received from a supplier. The dispute was not about the nature of the appellant's finished goods clearance being treated as import for computation; it was about whether the raw materials themselves could be treated as imported or non-indigenous. The Court further found that the concept of "deemed exports" (as referred to in policy) did not, by itself, transform domestic supplies into exports under customs law, and in any event the alleged benefit to the supplier did not automatically impact central excise duty liability on the appellant's domestic clearances.

Conclusion: The Court concluded that the cited determination relied upon in the impugned order did not support a proposition that raw materials supplied to the appellant were "deemed to be imported" merely due to the supplier's alleged "deemed export" benefit or because of discriminatory duty treatment by source under central excise exemptions.

Issue (ii): Evidentiary basis for concluding that raw materials were procured from an export oriented unit / were imported so as to violate the notification condition

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found no evidence on record supporting the finding that the raw materials were obtained from an export oriented unit. It held that the adjudicating authority had incorrectly treated the presence of CT-3 procedure as establishing duty-free supply of indigenous raw materials by a domestic unit to an export oriented unit, and further "contrived" from an observation relevant to domestic clearances of finished goods by an export oriented unit to attribute "non-indigenous" character to the raw materials. The Court reasoned that, for purposes of the notification condition, what mattered was not a geographic "origin" inquiry beyond central excise competence, but whether the raw materials had been imported and routed through customs procedures; "raw materials" manufactured in India could not be designated as imported merely on such assumptions. The Court also noted absence of evidence of any export obligation treatment for inter-unit transfers that might have supported the department's theory.

Conclusion: As there was no substantiation that the raw materials were imported or procured from an export oriented unit in a manner attracting the department's premise, the foundation for denial of the notification benefit failed. The duty demand, interest, and penalties were held unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside.

---