TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 392
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), challenges confirmation of differential duty of Rs. 26,03,212/- and Rs. 5,52,39,933/- demanded in terms of bond executed thereto by them and section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1994 respectively on 'spectacle lens' cleared by them into the 'domestic tariff area (DTA)' between June 2007 and April 2009 as well as from May 2009 to September 2015 respectively as proposed in two show cause notices. Two more notices were also taken up for disposal at the same time but the impugned order [order-in-original no: GOA-EXCUS-000-COMMISSIONER -022-15-16 dated 12th April 2016] of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Goa, while ruling on ineligibility to avail concessional rate of duty on clearances as in the other tw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce, including the requirement to carry out further activities to render those fit for use, central excise authorities concluded that these were, in fact, 'semi-finished', which was also admitted to in the statement of Shri Gaurav Gupta, Director, causing the first two show cause notices, proposing re-classification for conformity with description corresponding to tariff item 9001 90 90 of Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, to be issued. With this revision of classification, the show cause notice proposed to deny benefit of exemption under notification no. 6/2006-CE dated 1st March 2006 which, at serial no. 55, was available on clearance of 'spectacle lenses' by manufacturers. 3. Furthermore, with the rescinding of this particu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nto 'domestic tariff area (DTA)' by being deficient insofar as the obligation of being 'net foreign exchange positive' and for having cleared goods in excess of ceiling prescribed in the applicable notification. 6. On perusal of the impugned order, which has relied upon in the decision of the Tribunal supra in Essilor India Pvt Ltd, we find that the eligibility for the exemption from additional duties of customs upto 2011, and concessional rate of duty thereafter under alternative notification, has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Essilor India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore [2016 (335) ELT 584 (SC)] which has held that '7. There is no change in the tariff rate or in the nomenclature of various entries....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entitled to exemption notification which view was taken by even the department itself for earlier years.' 7. We find that he issue stands settle insofar as eligibility for concessional rate of duty in terms of notification no. 6/2006-CE dated 1st March 2006 is concerned. The question of eligibility in the environment in which that exemption was replaced by the one relied upon by appellant thereafter, viz., notification no. 1/2011-CE dated 1st March 2011 vis-a-vis the amendment effected to the tariff stricture would need to be examined in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. It was also the contention of Learned Counsel that the second notice was time-barred; however, we find, that the notice, while having travell....