TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 196
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Excise, Thane-Il. We dispose off all these appeals by this common order. 2. The present challenge is to order-in-original no.06/RKM/TH-II/2005 dated 29th July 2005 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II in relation to imports effected by M/s Suprapti Plastics Ltd, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) issued with Letter of Permission (LoP) by Development Commissioner, SEEPZ, in accordance with the scheme embodied in the Foreign Trade Policy issued under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. The unit was permitted to manufacture and export 'articles of plastics and bags' to which was added permission for manufacture and export of pulverised/micronized/ coated/compacted/ tablets/capsules of pharmaceutical produc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2000 and of water since February 2003 and that the machinery imported by them had been lying unused since 1999. That it could not have been manufactured in the Daman unit is alleged on the basis of the permission for job-work being restricted only to a part of the manufacturing process and not to the entire process itself. 5. Accordingly, the entire quantity of imported 'ascorbic acid' was held to be liable for confiscation under section 111 (o) of Customs Act, 1962; 17.225 MT of 'coated ascorbic acid' that had been seized from M/s Vishal Export Overseas Ltd and released provisionally to them was allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 35,00,000/- and 7.52 MT, seized from M/s Suprapti Plastics Ltd, was allowed to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....G Gases Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi [2005 (185) ELT 259 (T)] and Commissioner of Customs, Kandla v. PSL Pipe Coats Ltd [2004 (177) ELT 931 (T)] was cited. Challenging the reliance placed upon validity of test report furnished by IATLAB when the report of Deputy Chief Chemist was available, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad [1997 (93) ELT 646 (SC)] and that of the Tribunal in re Cellulose Products of India [2000 (124) ELT 1133 (T)] upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were harped on. That classification under the same heading in the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 does not preclude the manufacture of one from the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y amendment in permission that would allow the production of goods in form other than tablet nor capsule. The Food & Drug Administration have also denied the according of permission for such manufacture. The appellants have also not been able to produce any permission from the Drugs Controller for manufacture of pharmaceutical products. 10. It is abundantly clear that the goods cleared into the domestic tariff area were not such as were entitled to be cleared at the concessional rate of duty available to Export Oriented Units. Therefore, the clearance has been of goods that were not in conformity with the permission granted under the Foreign Trade Policy. Consequently, the goods are liable for confiscation as ordered by the adjudicating au....