TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 530
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....MAR : M/s Meneta Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd., Appellants (in Appeal No. E/54199/2014) are engaged in manufacture of Back Plates and Anti-Noise Shims; during the process of manufacture scrap of iron/ steel is generated in the factory and was cleared by the appellants in the Domestic Tariff Area in terms of Para 6.8 of Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009; the appellants were required to pay Excise Duty, on such clearances, in terms of Section 3 of the Customs Act, 1962; the appellants claimed exemption from payment of basic Customs duty in terms of Notification No.21/2002 as amended from time to time up to 07.05.2013; the appellants were paying basic Customs duty at the rate of 2.5% during the period 08.05.2013 to 30.09.2013; the appellants....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellants. The said order has been accepted by the Committee of Chief Commissioners on 03.11.2015 and Department has also accepted CESTAT's order dated 18.03.2015. She submits that as such the issue has attained finality. She submits that Department cannot take contrary stand for the same appellant in different proceedings. 3. She also submits that the appellants have availed the exemption from payment of BCD and SAD correctly. She submits that the appellant being a 100% EOU is entitled for clearance in DTA. She also submits that Cess is not payable three times and is payable twice for the period 01.02.2012 to 16.03.2012 and only once for the period 17.03.2012 to 30.09.2013. She further submits that as no duty is payable, penalty is not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned Authorized Representative for the Department assisted by Shri Aneesh Dewan, reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the case of appellants themselves has gone into the issue in detail and found that: 7. As regards the exemption from Basic Customs Duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. (Sl. No. 200) in respect of Steel scrap cleared into DTA, this exemption notification exempts fully and unconditionally, the "melting scrap" imported into India. In respect of the DTA clearances of scrap made by the appellant, the duty is payable in terms of proviso to Section 3(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the quantum of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 15-9-1994. 7.1 The other ground taken by the Department for denying basic customs duty exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. (Sl. No. 200), is that the scrap, in question, is not melting scrap, is absurd, as the nature of the scrap cannot be determined on the basis as to whether it has been sold the actual users or the dealers, as only use to which Iron and Steel Scrap can be put, is by melting the same to make some other Iron and Steel products. Same view has been taken by the Tribunal in its judgments in the case of Indo Deutsche Trade Links v. CC (Imports), Chennai reported in 2014 (303) E.L.T. 442 (Tri.-Chennai) (para 33) of the judgment. 7.2 In view of this, the part of the impugned order confirming the dut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal has decided the issue in favour of the appellants in the case of Sarla Performance Fibers (supra) holding that: 75. Learned DR has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Favorite Industries [2003 (156) E.L.T. 802 (Tri - Mumbai)] in support of his contention that the deeming provisions contained in the import export policy is limited to the benefits that would be available for deemed exports. It is not possible to say that it is export is for all intents and purposes. None of the benefits referred to is provided for in the Customs Act, 1962 or in the Central Excise Act, 1944. Such supply will not be for the purpose of this Act be deemed to be exports. Thus the drawback under Section 74 or 75 ibid will not be ....