2015 (6) TMI 45

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g authority. The issue involved in the present proceedings is whether National Calamity Contingency Duty (NCCD) is leviable on Partially Oriented Yarn (POY) and FDY when used captively in the manufacture of the goods falling under CETH 54.02 exempted under Notification No.46/2003-CE, dt.17.05.2003. 2. Shri P.P. Jadeja, learned Consultant appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that POY and FDY does not attract NCCD when captively consumed. That when POY is sold as such by the Appellant, NCCD is paid by the Appellant at the time of clearance from the factory. It was his case that the issue of leviability of NCCD during captive consumption is no more res integra and is covered by the following case laws decided by this Tribunal:- a)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Finance Act, 2001 read with Clause 161 of the Finance Bill 2003 (now Section 169 of the Finance Act, 2003). It appeared that the exemption from the payment of National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) was not available to the manufacturer of the above goods cleared to 100% EOU. Further, whereas the Notification No.46/2003-CE, dt.17.05.2003 was issued to exempt the goods falling under heading No.54.02 from the whole of the NCCD leviable thereon under Section 136 of the Finance Act, 2001 read with Clause 161 of the Finance Bill, 2003 (now Section 169 of the Finance Act, 2003) if such goods are manufactured from the goods falling under Heading No.54.02. However, there was no specific exemption notification that exempted NCCD imposed on POY c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by the learned Advocate, the issue is no more res integra and we also agree with the contention of the learned Advocate that the judgment of the Tribunal in relation to clearance under Notification No.108/95 can be applied and therefore, NCCD is not leviable in respect of clearance to 100% EOUs also. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. 6. In view of these facts and the legal position, we find that the Order-in-Appeal No. does not stand. The appeal filed by the appellants is therefore, allowed with consequential relief. 5. It is observed from Para 2 of the above order dt.10.06.2011 that POY manufactured by that Appellant in this case was being supplied to 100% EOUs as well as consumed in c....