TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 878
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t period when such scrap were sold which is in violation of conditions prescribed under Notification No. 23/2003 dt. 31.03.2003? ii) Whether the CESTAT ought to have remanded matters to Original Adjudicating Authority after a pasage of 13 years since issue of first SCN, passage of 11 yers since passing of OIO and 9 years after issue of OIA?" 4. Counsel for the appellant Mr. Siddharth Ranka has taken us to the orders of Commissioner and the CIT(A) and contended that in spite of the concurrent finding of both the authorities, the Tribunal has seriously committed an error in allowing the appeal inasmuch as without considering the notification which came much prior and without considering the observations made by authority which reads as under:- "6. I observe that the issue involved in all the three appeals is common with regard to availability of concessional rate of duty on the scrap cleared by 100% EOU (i.e. the appellant) in terms of notification no. 23/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003. the department has denined the benefit to the appellant on the ground that input-output norms in respect of the finished goods in their case were not fixed and approved under duty exemption scheme by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant was not entitled to clear the scrap at concessional rate of duty under the said notification no. 23/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 during the relevant period. I further observe that the appellant cleared the scrap in question during the period from October, 2003 to December, 2005 and every time during the course of hearing held before the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority they pleaded that they had applied to Development Commissioner for fixing norms and the required certificate will be submitted soon. The contention of the appellant that the adjudicating authority should have waited for the report of the Development Commissioner is not tenable in as much as till to day they could not submit the required certificate pertaining to the clearances effected even more than four years ago. I observe that the relevant provisions as discussed above require fulfillment of the conditions at the time of clearances of the goods for availing concessional rate of duty. The department has waited for a fairly reasonable time and the case cannot be kept open sine die. The request of the appellant made during the course of personal hearing for allowing one month's time for get....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the DGFT vide their letter dt. 23.2.2009. The concessional rate of duty @ of 30% envisaged under Notification no. 23/2003 dated 31.3.2003 is available in cases where such scrap has been allowed to be cleared in DTA. The differential duty has been demanded for different periods by Revenue by taking that view that since no norms were available at the time of clearance of the scrap., the same are to be considered as cleared without authorization and hence not entitled to the benefit of the notification. Since the input output norms have since been fixed by the DGFT the benefit of concessional rate for the scrap will be available to the appellants. I consider it necessary to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for verifying the calculation of the quantum of scrap cleared by the appellants during various periods covered under the present appeals. He is directed to extent the benefit of concessional rate of duty in respect of scrap subject to the approved limits of SION fixed by the DGFT. Since the issue is pending for a very long time I direct that this exercise will be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the present order. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants are directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- lakhs in addition to the amount already deposited within eight weeks for hearing of the appeal. On deposit of the above mentioned amount, the pre-deposit of remaining amount of dues are waived and recovery of the same is stayed during the pendency of the appeals. Compliance is to be reported on 27-9-2013." 9.2. He has also relied upon the decision in case of Meneta Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C.E. & S.T. Rohtak reported in 2013 (292) E.L.T. 49 (Tri.-Del.) wherein it has been held as under:- "We find that under the Notification No. 21/2002- Cus., dated 1-3-2002 the melting scrap of Iron & steel is exempted on S. No. 200 of the notification. There is no condition in the notification for availing the exemption. Prima facie the applicant has a strong case for availing the exemption, from basic Custom duty under Notification 21/2002. As regards the applicability of the exemption from the SAD under the Notification 23/2003, we find that under Para 6.8(e) of the Foreign Trade Policy waste and scrap arising out of the manufacture can be sold in the domestic polic....