TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 251
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anuary, 2005 on payment of excise duty by availing the benefit of concessional Notification No. 23/2003 dated 31.03.2003, read with para 6.8 (A&E) of the EXIM Policy 2002 to 2007. 1.2 The Revenue is of the view that as the appellant has not made any physical export and not taken permission for DTA sales, therefore, clearance under the above said Notification under concessional rate are not eligible. Therefore, the Show Cause Notice was issued on 18.08.2006 by invoking extended period of limitation for demanding differential excise duty along with interest and to impose penalty. The matter was adjudicated, the demand of duty was confirmed along with interest and equal amount of penalty was also imposed. Against the said order, appellant i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the issue has been dealt by this Tribunal in the case of Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. Vs C.C. Raigad 2014 (312) ELT 324 (Tri. Mum.), therefore, they are not entitled to get the benefit to exemption Notification for payment of concessional rate of duty. 4. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 5. We have examined the impugned order as well as the order in appeal. The main thrust of the Revenue is that the activity undertaken by the appellant for segregation were not covered by the definition of Manufacture w.e.f. 01.04.2002 as per EXIM Policy 2002 to 2007. Therefore, they are not entitled to get the benefit of Notification No. 23/03 to avail the benefit thereof for payment of duty at concessional rate. The said observation of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty of manufacture. In view of this, we find that there cannot be any demand of Customs duty from the appellant as has been held by this Tribunal in the case of Sanjari Twisters (supra), Dupont Synthetics (supra), Amitex Silk Mills (supra) and various other decisions. 9. As regards second issue, benefit of notification for discharge of Central Excise duty cleared from EOU to DTA, we find that the appellant-assessee had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002, which is available to the unit which are situated in DTA and if they are melting units, for import melting scrap. The conditions to the said notification are to be fulfilled, by importer as to the fact that the said scrap has been consumed in the said melting unit. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation and not tariff rates of duty. The lower authorities held to the contrary, based on proviso to Section 5A of the Central Excise Act. This finding is challenged in the present appeals. 3. The appellants contend that it is well settled that additional duty of Customs (CVD) is to be levied at effective rates and not at Tariff Rates. They rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Varsha Exports and Others v. UOI and others - 2000 (40) RLT 9 (Guj.) and Letter F. No. 305/113/94-FTT, dated 19th February, 1998 of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. 4. We observe that the issue raised before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court also was the effect of the same proviso to Section 5A on the clearance o....