TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 71
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in terms of which the duty demand of Rs. 8,07,227/- has been upheld along with penalties on the appellant assessee and Sh. B. K. Sharma. Revenue has also filed an appeal against the order-in-appeal No. 132/CE/BPL/2006 dated 3.5.2006 on the ground that the reduction in penalty on the appellant assessee from Rs. 8,07,227/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- was not legal and proper, and therefore, should be restored to Rs. 8,07,227/- imposed by the primary adjudicating authority. The demand has been confirmed on the ground that the appellant had cleared Polyster Synthetic Yarn in the DTA on payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 8/97-CE dated 01.03.1997 as amended on the basis of DTA clearance permission granted by the Development Commissioner on 15.04.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mission should not be interpreted to mean that during the period January to March 2002 both these kinds of yarn should have been exported for the permission to be valid for both these types of yarn. * The appellant assessee being 100% EOU, the goods were allowed to be cleared by the Central Excise authorities on the basis of the DGFT permission. 3. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, stated that (i) Cotton Yarn and Synthetic Yarn are neither similar goods nor they belong to the same class of goods because one is obtained from natural fiber while the other is obtained from the artificial fiber. (ii) When no synthetic yarn was exported during the period January to March 2002 in respect of which period the permission was sought for DTA clearance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner allowed DTA clearances of Synthetic Yarn. In this regard it is useful to reproduce the permission dated 15.04.2002 of the Development Commissioner. The above permission was granted by the DGFT on the appellants application dated 9.4.2002. We have perused the said application which was submitted during the hearing and find that in the said application the appellant had categorically mentioned that during the quarter January to March 2002 they had only exported Cotton Yarn and it had sought permission for DTA clearances for both Cotton and Synthetic Yarn up to the value of Rs. 3 Crores. 6. Para 6.8(b) of the Import and Export Policy which is referred to in the permission of the Development Commissioner is reproduced below: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etic Yarn. Condition No. 1 of the said permission states that DTA sale will be permissible only to the similar goods or which belong to the same class as that of goods manufactured and exported from the unit. This condition does not say that the goods should have been necessarily manufactured and exported during the quarter January to March 2002. If manufacture and export of Synthetic Yarn in January-March 2002 was required for DTA sale of Synthetic Yarn then the Development Commissioner would not have extended the approval for domestic sale of both Cotton Yarn and Synthetic Yarn as he was very much aware that there were no exports of Synthetic Yarn during that quarter. Therefore, the only harmonious interpretation of the scope of the said ....