2010 (6) TMI 434

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in not holding that the practice adopted by the said assessee would in effect defeat the purpose of the Exemption Notification No. 8/97, dtd. 1-3-1997? 2.   Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CESTA Tribunal is justified in the eye of law in holding that the said assessee would be entitled to the benefit of the said Exemption Notification No. 8/97, dtd. 1-3-1997? 3.   Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CESTA Tribunal is justified in the eye of law in holding that the inter-unit sales between EOUs can be on the same footing as the supplies by the Domestic Tariff Area Unit to a EOU? 4.   Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the L....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....calculated in terms of Notification No. 2/95 dated 4-1-1995, whereas it was required to pay duty of Rs. 5,90,042/- only in terms of Notification No. 8/97. Pursuant to the application, show cause notice came to be issued denying the claim made by the respondent, which culminated into an order dated 12-9-2003 of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, rejecting the claim of refund made by the respondent on the ground that the goods received from a 100% EOU under C.T.-3 procedure are deemed to be imported raw materials for the purposes of notifications No. 2/95 dated 4-1-1995 (as amended), No. 13/98 dated 2-6-1998 (as amended) and 8/97 dated 1-3-1997 (as amended). The assessee carried the matter in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who, ....