2008 (9) TMI 266

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h Shah and D.H. Mehta, learned advocates appeared on behalf of the respondents. 3. We heard both sides. The respondent is a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of grey fabrics which are excisable. The grey fabrics were cleared to holders of advance release orders issued under the Duty Free Replenishment Certificate (DFRC) Scheme under the cover of exemption Notification No. 28/2001-C.E., dated 16-5-2001 issued under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The above Notification exempts the goods from Basic Excise Duty and Special Additional Duty of Excise. It is also seen that the impugned items are entitled for the exemption under Central Excise Notifications No. 3/2001-C.E. dated 1-3-2001 for period from December, 2001 to February, 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001/2002 and interest was also demanded under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants were aggrieved over the impugned order and approached the Commissioner (A). 4. The Commissioner (A) has given a clear finding that the issue is covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. J.K. Synthetics - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 54 (S.C.) and Union of India v. Plastic Processors - 2005 (186) E.L.T. A27 (S.C.). Relying on the above decisions, he has also given his reasoning for not charging the impugned items to Additional Duty of Customs. 5. Revenue is aggrieved over the impugned order of the Commissioner (A) on the following grounds. (a) The said order is in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ision, the Tribunal has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Lucky Star International v. UOI - 2001 (134) E.L.T. 26 (Guj.) and Varsha Exports v. UOI - 2000 (40) RLT 9 (Guj). In Para 3 of the said order, the Tribunal has observed that the effect of the proviso to Section 5A on the clearance of goods to DTA by an EOU was raised before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and after considering the various provisions of the statute, the High Court held that the Additional Duty of Customs shall be reckoned on the effect rate and not the tariff rate. A similar decision was taken in the case of Plastic Processors v. UOI - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 521 (Del.). The decision of the Plastic Processors (supra) case decided by the D....