TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 988
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Office of Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi to M/s. Daewoo Motors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi against a duty free import licence No.P/L/0095651 dt. 7.9.1998. In respect of the above aforesaid supplies the appellants have cleared the goods against advance release order in terms of Para 7.15 of the EXIM Policy without payment of duties such as Basic Customs Duty, CVD and SAD in terms of Notification No.82/92-CE dt. 27.8.92. The department issued a show cause notice demanding duty of Rs. 81,75,886/- towards the CVD & SAD on the ground that under Notification No.82/92-CE. 27.8.92. The assessee is entitled for exemption only from Basic Customs Duty and not from CVD and SAD, it was also alleged in the show cause notice that the appellant is not entitled for exemption for the reason that proper procedure for the clearance of goods against ARO has not been followed by the appellants. The adjudicating authority on the same contention confirmed the demand for the extended period, also imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC, demanded the interest under Section 11AB and also imposed personal penalties of Rs. 15 lakhs on Shri Tajinder Singh Bhathal, Managing Director of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of Central Excise, Vadodara 2003 (152) E.L.T. 262 (S.C.) (ii) Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of Central Excise, Meerut 2005 (188) E.L.T. 149 (S.C.) (iii) Gopal Zarda Udyog Vs. Commr. Of Central Excise, New Delhi 2005 (188) E.L.T. 251 (S.C.) 3. Shri S.V. Nair, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that the notification No.82/92-CE provides exemption only from payment of Basic Customs Duty and there is no explicit mention therein about exemption from additional duty of Customs, therefore the exemption from payment of CVD and SAD is not available under the Notification No.82/92-CE. He further submits that the appellants have not followed the prescribed procedure properly for removal of goods against ARO hence not entitled for the exemption. As regard limitation he submits that being 100% DOU, any demand against the 100% EOU does not get time bar as the entire working of the 100% EOU is governed under bond as the EOU is a bonded unit, therefore any duty liability if any arise, it is secured the bond executed by the EOU, therefore the demand in case of 100% EOU doe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms duty so paid, immediately upon the said inputs entering his factory; (b) If the importer uses the inputs for production of export goods, which are otherwise not excisable or not dutiable or not eligible for Modvat benefit, he may claim drawback in respect of the additional customs duty so paid at the time of export of goods in which such inputs have been used; (c) If the importer uses the inputs for manufacture and sale in the DTA of excisable goods, he may claim Modvat in respect of the additional customs duty so paid, immediately upon the said Inputs entering his factory: (d) If the importer uses the inputs for manufacture and sale in the DTA of goods which are not excusable or not dutiable or not eligible for Modvat benefit, he shall not be eligible to any rebate or adjustment of the additional customs duty so paid. 7.4 (i) Notwithstanding anything contained above, exemption from payment of additional customs duty and Anti-dumping duty shall be allowed in respect of Advance Licences, issued with actual user condition to: (a) Manufacturer exporter; (emphasis supplied) (b) Merchant exporter where the merchant exporter agrees to the endorsement of the name(s) of the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rders in terms of Paragraphs 7.15 or 7.17 of the Export-Import Policy does not grant exemption from additional duty of customs. Revenue, therefore, contends that the exemption Notification must be construed strictly and duty collected on all supplies effected against Advance Release Orders irrespective of whether the Advance Release Order related to advance licences issued under Para 7.3 or 7.4 of Export-Import Policy. As against this, the appellant contends that since the Customs Notification (30/97) and Excise Notification (82/92) have been issued to complement supplies of imports under scheme, Notification No.82/92 is required to be construed so as to implement that Policy and not to disrupt the Policy. It is their submission that when Notification is interpreted harmoniously with the different provisions of Para 7.3 and 7.4 of advance licence policy, it would be clear that in the appellant's case since the Advance Release Orders had been issued under Para 7.4, no additional duty of customs was leviable. They also point out that a contrary interpretation so as to levy additional customs duty only creates obstacles to an advance licence holder in the sourcing of import, witho....