TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 934
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant against the Order-in-Original dated 31.01.11. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant was operating as a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), within the meaning of the Foreign Trade Policy, engaged in the manufacture and export of PET Resin („the finished goods‟) at its manufacturing facility at Haldia, West Bengal. As a 100% EOU, the Appellant was permitted to procure inputs and capital goods, imported or indigenous, without payment of Customs or Excise duty in terms of Notification No. 52/2003 dated 31.03.2003 and Notification No. 22/2003 dated 31.03.2003 respectively. The finished goods manufactured by an EOU and cleared in the domestic market are subject to duties of excise under the 2nd proviso to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring the period 22.10.2009 upto 22.01.2010 at a reduced price resulting in an excess payment of Excise duty of Rs. 33,44,886/-. The Appellant obtained a No Objection Certificate dated 19.03.2010 from the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and the Unit was finally de-bonded from the EOU Scheme with effect from 1.04.2010 in terms of the de-bonding order dated 29.03.2010. The Appellant filed a refund claim on 10.06.2010 of the excess self-assessed Excise duty of Rs. 33,44,886/- paid in respect of manufactured finished goods and manufactured waste lying in Closing Stock as on 15.10.2009. The refund claim was filed with the Customs Authorities as the administration of EOU was with the Customs Authorities upto 31.07.2010. The refund claim was reje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e period 16.10.2009 to 22.01.2010. Therefore, the learned Appellate Commissioner erred in holding that the "value" on which duty was discharged prior to removal had attained finality and could not be re-visited. Since, the excise duty paid on the manufactured goods prior to removal was higher than the excise duty applicable on removal, the refund claim of the Appellant is justified. (C) No provisional assessment was sought by the Appellant under Rule 7(1) and no order finalizing the provisional assessment was passed under Rule 7(3) of the Central Excise Rules. The letters dated 2 December 2009 and/or 30 December 2009 could not be construed as final assessment orders as there was no quantification of any confirmed liablity. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 14-I-L of the FTP as the final debonding Order was dated 29 March 2010 in terms whereof, the Unit was de-bonded only with effect from 1 April 2010. Thereafter, the refund claim was filed on 10 June 2010 with reference to excise duty paid in excess under the proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act vis-à-vis the ultimate selling price. Therefore, the refund is not arising out of a difference in the rate of excise duty but on account of the value adopted for the purposes of discharge of excise duty on the stock of manufactured FG and waste as in existence on the cutoff date i.e. 15 October 2009. The Ld. Appellate Commissioner accepts that the refund claim was filed within the period of limitation prescribed under the Central Exc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore final debonding Order dated 11.06.2011 and therefore filed a refund claim in respect of excise duty paid in excess on the said stock of FG. The said FG stock was exported before and after the NOC dated 28.04.2011 from the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise. Similar contention as is advanced herein was raised by the revenue that after in principle approval of debonding but before the final debonding Order, the stock of FG would be deemed to have been cleared into DTA. Negating the said contention of the revenue, the Tribunal observed in para 7 as under: 7. On going through the provisions, of Appendix 14-I-L, we find that in terms of Note-(ii) to this Appendix, a 100% EOU must be continued to be treated as EOU/EHTP/STP unit till t....