TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 805
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uring the period April 2014 to December 2014 (the 'disputed period') on payment of applicable duties of Customs, inter alia, claiming exemption from SAD under Notification No. 45/2005Cus(Tariff) dated 16 May 2005 as amended vide Notification No. 18/2011-Cus(Tariff) dated 1 March 2011. The "BOEs" were duly counter signed by the Customs Officer posted at Falta, SEZ and the blanks were allowed to be cleared with the said exemption. Pursuant to an audit objection from the Customs Receipt Audit Department, proceedings were initiated by a Notice dated 3 October 2016 alleging wrongful availment of "SAD" exemption by the Appellant in view of para 3 of the Circular No. 45/2013 dated 30 December 2013 and the demand proposed therein has been confirmed vide the impugned Order dated 24 January 2020 by invoking the extended period of limitation. 3. The Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant has assailed the Order dated 24 January 2020 both on merits as well as limitation on the following grounds: A. Clearance of Blanks from the SEZ unit to the DTA unit in the instant case were in the nature of stock transfers as opposed to sale and such Blanks were also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Falta "SEZ". It is settled by the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Northern Plastics - 1998 (101) ELT 549 that when the description of goods was correctly and fully given in the "BOE" laying claim to an exemption, whether admissible or not was a matter of belief of the assessee and did not amount to any mis-statement or suppression. Further, in the context of Notification No. 45/2005 itself, the division bench of the Tribunal in the case of Baccarose Perfumes - 2014 (301) ELT 691 wherein the exemption was initially allowed but sought to be recovered subsequently; held the invocation of extended period as unjustifiable. Although the normal period of limitation was enhanced from 1 year to 2 years with effect from 14 May 2016 and the Notice in the instant case was issued only thereafter on 3 October 2016, the amendment was not a retrospective one and thus demands which had already become barred by limitation could not get revived by the amendment. Thus the entire demand for the period April 14 to December 14 stood barred by limitation [Refer - Aveco Technologies - 2018 (362) ELT 624 also maintained by the SC in 2018 (362) ELT A164]. 4.&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olved herein is squarely covered by the decision of the division bench of the Tribunal in the case of Serum Institute of India (supra) [refer para 5 & 6]. The decision of the AAR in the case of GE India (supra) also supports the case of the Appellant. We are in complete agreement with the contention of the Appellant that the Circular cannot curtail the scope of an exemption notification which deserves to be interpreted strictly and on its own terms as held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the Tata Tele Services case (supra). 7. We also find that the impugned Order in the garb of recovering "SAD" also seeks to recover the CVD of Rs. 1,99,17,645/- by relying upon the proviso to Section 5A of the Central Excise Act and to that extent does travel beyond the scope of the Notice dated 3 October 2016. Even otherwise the demand for "CVD" can sustain in view of the decision of the Gujrat High Court in Roxul Rockwool case (supra) wherein it has been held as under: "22. However, with the framing of the Special Economic Zones Act, different existing SEZ units were brought within the fold of the Special Economic Zones under the provisions of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....valent to excise duty component to be paid by local manufacturer of like goods when produced or manufactured in India. Whether such liability would continue on SEZ units when local manufacturers were exempt has seen to be gathered from the language used in Section 30 of SEZ Act and not from proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 5A of Central Excise Act. Even otherwise, Section 51 of SEZ Act gives overriding effect to the provisions of the Act. Thus, the entire legislative scheme has undergone a change by introduction of SEZ Act and the changes made in the Central Excise Act in this regard. [As discussed earlier, legislative intention emerging is that a SEZ unit will have no liability to pay countervailing duty, if the local manufacturer of like goods is exempt from payment of whole of such duty]." 8. In the present case, the impugned order itself records at para 12.11 that the subject goods as "ball pen parts" were generally exempted from central excise duty under S. No. 325(ii) of Notification No.12/2012 dated 17 March 2012. Even on the point of limitation the demand has to fail as the BOE‟s were countersigned by the customs official prior to clearance of good....