2007 (5) TMI 94

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... company is a 100% EOU and procure inputs duty free either indigenously or by way of import, for use in relation to the manufacture of camshafts. One of the input procured by the appellant is Resin Coated Sand (RCS). This RCS is used to make moulds/patterns and cores, which are in turn utilized for the manufacture of camshafts. After the completion of the relevant processes, the resin coated sand after use yields burnt sand as remnant. This burnt sand is non-excisable goods and is disposed off by the appellant company. It is the contention of the Revenue that the appellant company having availed benefit of Notification No. 1 /95-C.E., dt. 4-1-1995 & No. 53/97-Cus., dt. 3-6-1997 are governed by the conditions at paragraph 7 and having not co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oducts that are totally exported by the appellants. It is also undisputed that the duty free in puts (RCS) has been accounted by the appellants and that the appellant have continuously achieved the export obligations as set by the DGFT. It is also not disputed that the manufacturing process results in the burning of the resin coated sand, which is of no use to the appellants, and it has to be cleared from the appellant's factory. It is also undisputed that the said burnt sand is a non- excisable item. 5. In order to examine whether the appellants have violated condition at paragraph 7 of Notifications No. 53/97-Cus. It is necessary to read the said para. "Notwithstanding anything contained in this notification exemption herewith shall....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roduced paragraph 7 of the notification that the embargo put is in respect of the "such articles" which are non-excisable. It would mean that "such articles" are the articles which are be manufactured as final products by the appellant as per the LOP given by the DGFT. In the present case before us, the castings manufactured by the appellant are the "such articles" as envisaged in Notification No. 531.97. If that be the case, we find that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hanil Era (supra) clearly covers the issue in the present case before us. We may read paragraph 17 from the said judgment, which dealt with the very same paragraph 7 of Notification No. 53/97-Cus. "Further, Para 7 of Notification No. 53/97 provides that where ....