TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of a non-existent manufacturing facility to operate as a central excise assessee and claim benefits arising therefrom. The appellant, allegedly, imported two consignments [bill of entry no. 819914/25.01.2008 and bill of entry no. 820749/30.01.2008] of 'billets/rounds', procured on 'high seas' from M/s Maharashtra Seamless Ltd, in January 2008, that were cleared by claiming benefit of notification no. 53/2003-Cus dated 1st March 2003 against 'duty free entitlement credit certificate (DFECC)' licence issued to them on 20th January 2006 as 'manufacturer-exporter', and one consignment [bill of entry no. 827382/05.03.08] of similarly procured 'seamless pipes' cleared in March 2008 on payment of duty that were sent to the same M/s Maharashtra Seamless Ltd for further processing as 'supporting manufacturer' before ostensible transfer back to appellant for export. In essence, the case of central excise authorities is that M/s Maharashtra Seamless Ltd is the exporter and that M/s Jaguar International Ltd illicitly transferred goods permitted for import under the relevant notification only to 'actual user' holding the appropriate authorization under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP). The post....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Enterprises [2009 (235) ELT 785 (Guj)], that was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on the decision of the Tribunal in Ajinkya Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III [2011-TIOL-1333-CESTAT-MUM], that was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III v. Brakes India Ltd [2016-TIOL-1054-HC-MAD-CX] and of the Tribunal in PCM Strescon Ventures Ltd v. Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Alwar [2018-TIOL-2130-CESTAT-DEL]. 4. From the submissions of Learned Authorised Representative, it would appear that the appellant had crafted a scheme to monetise the credit availed on imported goods by recourse to rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 providing for rebate of duties which, in the normal course, a merchant-importer would not be entitled to. He submitted that the sole claim of the appellant to dispute the disallowance of unintended benefit is the return of manufactured goods from M/s Maharashtra Seamless Ltd was evidenced by copies of challans that were, in any case, not tenable in the absence of endorsement of receipt. It was also contended that their clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ged at the previous stage - enabling 'zero' contribution to the tax kitty. Learned Counsel took it upon himself to discredit the argument of holistic perception by pointing out the lack of illegality in any of the several aspects of law relating to central excise as far as the deployment of imported goods was concerned. 6. We may, at the outset, decline to have anything to do with propriety of import, or adherence to obligations devolving, under 'duty free entitlement credit certificate (DFECC)' scheme in the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), operationalized through notification no. 53/2003-Cus dated 1st April 2003, as the lack of jurisdiction with the lower authorities precludes our jurisdictional competence too. There is no evidence of proceedings having been initiated under Customs Act, 1962, notwithstanding the optics of apparent preference for complex, over simple, transaction, for transgressions in import, and subsequent disposition, of the impugned goods by the appellant. There is no dispute that resultant goods for export are excisable and have been cleared on payment of appropriate duties of central excise. There is also no dispute that the goods so manufactured are entitled ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the statute is intended to specify, and elaborate upon, expressions deployed in the substantive provisions of the statute; it does not substitute for the object and purpose of the statute itself as to afford empowerment by any administrative authority established under the statute. In the context of Central Excise Act, 1944 empowering the levy and collection of '... (a) a duty of excise... On all excisable goods which are produced all manufactured in India...' in section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944, the said definition assumes significance for rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The definition of 'manufacture' is, admittedly, inclusive in referring to any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product and, therefore, is not constrained except to the extent of any person, upon whom the said charge under section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944 is sought to be fastened, seeking, and establishing, eligibility of escapement therefrom. A person opting to be subject to a tax regime prescribing conditions in such broad, and general, terms cannot, in the absence of legislative device, be excluded therefrom. It is also not open to tax au....