2019 (9) TMI 136

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The writ petitioner is a 100% export oriented unit. It is engaged in manufacture of Match Sticks. M/s. Eutrabell India, Sivakasi was issued with letter of permission dated 6-11-2012, for transferring the capital goods in question from their unit to the writ petitioner. 3. It is not in dispu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e year. Instead the earlier notification was so amended as to provide for such goods being installed or otherwise used within the unit within the period of validity of the Letter of Permission (LOP). 5. The Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner states that this is a substitutive amendment and therefore retrospective. The stand of the petitioner was not accepted and the impugned order dated....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....93 (68) E.L.T. 319 in the case of East West Exporters v. Assistant Collector of Customs. 8. I carefully considered the rival contentions. 9. It is not in dispute that the purchase of goods by the writ petitioner from Eutrabell India partakes the character of an import. This is because, both of them are 100% export oriented units. The petitioner was therefore otherwise liable to pay Cus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he time limit not exceeding 5 years. 10. In this case, the petitioner did not obtain such an extension. Therefore, on account of the operation of the Clause 3(d)(1)(i) of Notification No. 52/2003, dated 31-3-2003, the petitioner came under a liability. It is true that this notification was later amended on 25-5-2015 vide Notification No. 34/2015. It is also true that the notification reads a....