2018 (3) TMI 567

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....who is not having manufacturing unit in SEZ is eligible for exemption of Additional Duty of Customs leviable on the imported goods under Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, under Notification NO. 45/2005-Cus dated 16/05/2005. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant - M/s Zamil Air Conditioners Pvt. Ltd. were engaged in manufacture of Air Conditioner and imported certain inputs. They routed their imported goods by filing Into bond Bill of Entry through M/s Arshiya Supply Chain Management Pvt. Ltd. which had warehouse in Foreign Trade Warehousing Zone, Khurja (hereinafter referred as FTWZ, Khurja for short), having a status of SEZ and filed Ex-bond Bill of Entry for movement of said Bonded goods stored in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eliance on the decision of the Advance Ruling Authority in re GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2014 (304) E.L.T. 452. I find that in the said case there were two units of GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. one located in SEZ and another one in DTA and the goods were transferred from SEZ unit of DTA unit. In the case in hand, the appellant does not have any unit in SEZ. Any decision is rendered in particular set of facts. I consider that the facts are distinct and dissimilar in the case in hand and the appellant s reliance on the said decision is misplaced. The appellant has imported the goods for manufacture of excisable goods. In other words, sale of imported goods was neither intended nor effected. In this factual matrix, whether any....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al decisions to help its cause. I find that the facts are completely dissimilar and there is no parity. The cited decisions are not able to rescue the appellant in the case in hand. The original authority has confirmed demand with interest. On consideration of material on record, appellant s submissions and relevant statutory provisions, I hold that the appeal is not maintainable. The Order-in-Original is upheld and the appeal is rejected." Being aggrieved by the said order both the appellants are before this Tribunal. 3. Heard the ld. Counsel for the appellants. He has contended that since the goods were removed from FTWZ Khurja having a status of SEZ they were entitled for benefit of said Notification NO. 45/2005-Cus dated 16/05/2005. H....