TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ales invoices it was seen that the appellants had sold in DTA, the goods in the nature of 'tipping body' and steel structures availing payment of concessional duty vide Notification No.23/2003 CE dated 31.03.2003. It appeared to the Department that the appellant had contravened the provisions of para 6.8 (a) of the Foreign Trade Policy in as much as the appellant had not cleared to DTA, the products similar to the goods which were exported by the unit. Two Show Cause Notices were issued proposing to demand the differential duty along with interest and to impose penalties. After due process of law, the Original Authority confirmed the demand vide order dated 31.12.2007. Aggrieved by such order, the appellants preferred an appeal before the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Show Cause Notice has been issued in October 2007 after exit from EOU by proposing to dis-allow the benefit of the notification dated 31.03.2003 alleging that the goods cleared to DTA are not similar to the goods exported to the appellant as EOU. 4. The learned counsel submitted that the tipper body cleared to DTA on the basis of LOP given by the Development Commissioner is similar to the open top container exported by the appellant as an EOU. The tipper body is nothing but a kind of container only used for transportation. The process adopted for the manufacture of tipper body cleared for DTA and process adopted for the manufacture of other containers including open top container exported by the appellant as EOU are the same. Therefore, ti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant. 8. Heard both sides and perused the records. 9. The issue that arises for analysis is whether the tipper bodies cleared by the appellant into DTA, who is 100% EOU, are eligible for the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No.23/2003 CE. The permission granted to the appellant for DTA sales reads as under: "Please refer to your letter dt. 04.04.2003 on the subject mentioned above. In view on the situation explained in the letter cited, you are permitted to sell the following products manufactured as trial production in your 100% EOU located at No.104, Pollivakkam Village, Tiruvallur Sriperumbudur Road, Tiruvallur - 602 002 in respect of letter permission No. PER 362 (1993)EOB/366/93 dated 27.08.93 for a val....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... product in dispute is 'Tipping Body'. The authorities below have decided that it is different from Marine Freight Containers and Open Top Containers. The words used in para 6.8 (a) of FTP is that the EOU unit may sell products in DTA which are "similar" to the goods that are exported by the unit. The word used is similar and not identical. 12. The very same issue was analyzed by the Tribunal in the case of Abi Turnamatics Vs. Commissioner of GST & CE (supra) as under: "5.4 The third ground for denial of notification benefit is that the goods cleared in DTA are not "similar" 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-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 31-3-2006 issued by the Development Commissioner, MEPZ and subsequently also further revised by MEPZ/SEZ that the main products that was manufactured/exported to be turbo charger components. There is no doubt that the appellant had exported bearing housing whereas the goods to be cleared into DTA seeking benefit of Notification 23/2003 was turbo wheel assembly. While, the adjudicating authority has been at pains to cite the difference in characteristics and function of these two items, the fact remains that both of them are components of turbo charger and hence will surely fall 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....