TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1296
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Notification No. 23/2003-CE dated 31.3.2003, benefit is available only if the product is made out of indigenous raw materials. Secondly, the Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise's prior approval / satisfaction is needed for DTA clearance. Thirdly, only similar goods can be cleared in DTA and the interpretation of what are 'similar goods' is to be based on the definition of 'similar goods' in Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 8.4.2008 was issued proposing denial of concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification 23/2003-CE dated 31.3.2003 for goods cleared into DTA. In adjudication, the Commissioner vide the impugned order dated 29.1.2010 confirmed the demand of central excise duty amountin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Greatship (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2016 (338) ELT 545 (Del.). 2.4 Periodical returns have been filed and all the clearances are through proper invoices and duly accounted. Hence, even if there is non-payment, it can be only due to interpretation of the provisions. There is no evidence established to show that there is deliberate suppression with intention to evade duty by the appellant. Hence extended period cannot be invoked. 3. On the other hand, ld. AR Ms. T. Usha Devi supports the findings in the impugned order. She drew attention to para 12 of the impugned order to point out that only after an analysis of all aspects of the matter had the adjudicating authority arrived at th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rement is found only in condition 3 which in any case is not sought to be availed by the appellant. This being so, the first ground for denial of the benefit is not sustainable. 5.3 Coming to the second ground, namely, requirement of taking prior permission from jurisdictional Customs / Central Excise authority for DTA sale of goods, we find that vide Circular 12/2005-Cus. dated 4.3.2005, CBEC in para 2H therein have clarified as:- 2(H). DTA Sale of Finished Goods: (i) The para 6.39.9 of the HOP as amended by the Public Notice no. 50/2004-2009 dated 24th January of the Department of Commerce prescribes DTA Sale of finished products as per para 6.8(a) by eligible EOUs shall not require permission of Development Commissioner or Jurisdict....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imilar" to the goods exported by the appellant. The adjudicating authority in para 11 of the impugned order has relied upon para 3 of Board Circular 7/2006-Cus. dated 13.1.2005 which has observed that there is no definition of "similar goods'. Hence to bring clarification and uniformity that the definition of "similar goods" would be based on the definition of similar goods as provided in the Customs Valuation (Determination of Pride of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. The relevant portion of the Board's clarification is under:- "The term 'similar goods" means "goods which is although not alike in all respects, have like characteristics and like component materials which enable them to perform the same functions and to be commercially int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l under the broad banded term 'turbo charger components' which is the export product as per the EOU/green card issued to the appellant by the Development Commissioner. Hence when the permission granted to appellant has not listed any specific components of a turbo charger but instead has only indicated export product as 12,50,000 nos. of turbo charger component which was even subsequently enhanced to 32,00,000 nos. of turbo charger components, the appellant cannot then be said to have caused a breach of the conditions. Both bearing housing and turbine wheel are surely component parts of turbo charger, a fact which has been admitted by the adjudicating authority in para 12 of the impugned order. If on the other hand, the permission granted b....