2024 (10) TMI 1058

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law by this Court by order dated 18.06.2024: "a) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT, Bangalore is justified in dismissing the appeal filed by revenue against order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs; without going into aspect whether the Development Commissioner is justified in going beyond the purview of Para 9.24 of Hand Book of Procedure 1997-2002 as per which "an EOU may bunch the product manufactured by it for the purpose of DTA sale within the six digit H.S. Code". The H.S. code of the items cleared by the Respondents are 5205.11 and 5509.99 for Cotton Yarn and Man-made Yarn respectively; and b) CESTAT is co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... product manufactured by it for the purpose of DTA sale within the six digit HS Code". This department interpreting these words, have contended that the products Cotton Yarn, Poly Cotton Yarn, Poly Viscose Yarn and Polyester Yarn, which are listed in the HS Code as 5205.11, 5509.99, 5509.99 and 5509.99 respectively, cannot be bunched, since these fall under different HS Codes. It is observed that, the DTA clearances, of even these products, Poly Cotton Yarn, Poly Viscose Yarn and Polyester Yarn, falling under the same HS Code 5509.99, total to 55.742% of the production, far exceeding the allowed 25% and also exceeds the additional 15% allowed. Only when, the DTA clearances of all the products including Cotton Yarn (HS Code 5205.11) are tota....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1999. The finding in para No.28 is incorrect and Order-in-Appeal is also incorrect, for bolstering said submission, Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned counsel for the appellant firstly submitted that the decision of exemption of April, 1998 was not retrospective in nature and does not cover the entire period retrospectively. Secondly, the larger period was covered within existing para No.9.24, wherein, the fulfillment of six digit was an essential requirement. 5. The main reason for non receipt of order in favour of revenue was that the Competent Authority was the Development Commissioner, who confined requirements of Revenue by taking some view and treated the aforesaid items as single item of 'Spun Yarn Cotton, Synthetic and Blends'. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the DTA, the matter should have been taken up with the Development Commissioner who had initially accorded the permission to the Appellants. ... ...we are of the view that once the Appellants had submitted the permission to sell the goods manufactured by them in the DTA under and in accordance with paragraph 9.9 of the Export-Import Policy, 1997-2002, the Revenue cannot go beyond the permission and dispute the value of clearance allowed by the Competent Authority in this case Development Commissioner, NEPS, Noida. It is not the case of the Revenue that the demand of duty has been confirmed for not complying with any other condition of the Notification No.8/97-C.E." (Emphasis Supplied) 8. It was pointed out that this ord....