2009 (2) TMI 607

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of duty of over Rs. 65 lacs and imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- are under challenge. 2. After examining the records, we find that the appellants were working as a 100% EOU and that they were allowed to sell in India 25% of the value of the exports in terms of Para 9.9 (b) of the EXIM Policy 1997-2002. This provision of the Policy permitted 25% of the production in value terms to be sold in DTA subject to payment of applicable duties. The assessee effected clearances, within this limit, of HDPE/PP Yarns during the period of dispute (November 1999 to January 2000). Duty thereon was paid by availing the concession provided under Notification No. 2/95-C.E. ibid. In terms of the Notification, the assessee was required to pay as e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....learances, which, according to them, were not made under para 9.9 (b) of the EXIM Policy. The assessee's case put across to us by Counsel today is that the clearances in question were effected under Para 9.9(b) of the EXIM Policy and not under Para 9.10(b) as contended by the Revenue. It is submitted by the Id. Counsel that what was envisaged under Para 9.10 was only a further benefit admissible to 100% EOU etc. and, accordingly, their sales in DTA against payment in foreign exchange were to be reckoned towards fulfillment of export obligation. We find that an identical question was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai - 2007 (211) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.). The appellant in that case also ....