2008 (7) TMI 352

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri M.P. Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) (for the Bench)].- These two appeals by the Department are against the common orders-in-appeal No. IND-I/134-135/04 dated 23-3-2004 of the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. We heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows:- (a) The respondent, a 100% EOU, is manufacturing different categ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and, therefore, demanded differential duty in respect of quantity of yarn cleared in excess of 5% limit. (d) On appeal by the party, Commissioner (Appeals) held that the 5% limit shall be applicable on the total production and not for individual items of manufacture and allowed the appeal of the respondent. 4. Learned DR submits that in respect of certain varieties the rejects cleared is as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5% limit in respect of products taken together. In respect of synthetic yarn, the rejection was on the higher scale and in respect of others it has been on much lower scale. 6. We have carefully considered the submission from both sides and also perused the policy provision and the clarifications given by the Development Commissioner. If the 100% EOU manufactured only one product then there is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....respect of any product manufactured by 100% EOU. The EXIM policy permits rejects of a higher percentage subject to permission by the Development Commissioner in consultation with the Customs Authorities. In this case, when the respondent has sought clarification from the Development Commissioner it was clarified that the 5% limit is not applicable to each product separately. In these circumstances....