TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1002
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anding duty on "Instant Coffee Powder" cleared to DTA by wrongly availing the benefit of Notification No.43/2001-CE (NT) dt. 26.6.2001 wherein the appellant cleared "Instant Coffee" to M/s.Blend Pack, Bangalore under the above notification. The adjudicating authority in his order confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,40,81,843/- on the clearances of Instant Coffee during the period 30.6.2007 to 16.5.2008 under Section 11A (2) along with interest and also imposed equivalent penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules,2002. Hence the present appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that Notification No.43/2001-CE dt.26.6.2001 was issued under Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules As per clause (2) (ii) of the notification, exemption i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods were accounted by Blend Pack and the intimation was sent to jurisdictional Commissioner of appellant's unit. (Ref. Page 124 of PB). He further submits that M/s.Blend Pack is a job worker of Hindustan Lever Ltd. who manufactured Instant Coffee for further repacking and the goods were ultimately exported by HLL which is not disputed by the adjudicating authority. He drew our attention to Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules as per Rule 19 (2) the goods can be removed without payment of duty from a factory of the producer or the manufacturer or from any other premises to for use in the processing of goods which are exported as maybe approved by Commissioner. He further submits that identical issue in denial of Notification No.47/94 wherein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne by notification No.53/2003. She further submits that the goods were not exported by M/s. Blend Pack and the goods were cleared again by HLL. She submits that the clearance of goods to M/s. Blend Pack is nothing but sale and Notification No.43/2001 is not applicable. She referred to page 144 of the paper book wherein Form A.R.E.2 is filed to submit that M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. has exported the goods under DEPB. Clearances of goods by HLL cannot be considered to have been made by 100% EOU. She relied on the following citations :- (1) Leather Crafts (India) Pvt. Ltd.-2011 (274) ELT 379 (2) Amod Stampings Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC Kandla-2015 (318) ELT 468 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 6. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upplied the same as inputs to manufacturer of excisable goods who ultimately exported the said product. For this purpose, it is claimed that they produced CT-2 certificate issued in favour of the recipient unit by the officer of the in-charge of the recipient unit. On the basis of the said certificate it was claimed that they have effected the clearances duty free in terms of Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with the Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001. The original authority held that as a 100% E.O.U. they are governed by special provisions and, therefore, they cannot avail the benefit under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules and the said order has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Learn....