TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1089
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufacture and export of Gherkins in Vinegar etc., falling under Chapter 20 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant through their letter dated 27.08.2010 sought permission for destruction of goods manufactured by them which became unfit for human consumption, after obtaining necessary permission from the Development Commissioner, Cochin Special Economic Zone. The appellant, consequently, were informed by the Department that according to the conditions prescribed under Notification No.52/2003-Cus and No.22/2003-CE both dated 31.03.2003, they were required to pay an amount equal to the duty leviable on the indigenous/imported inputs along with interest, since the said inputs and packing materials had not been cleared for export or h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y way of substitution, it has retrospective effect and the same has to be read and construed as if the altered words had been written into Act or Rules from their inception. In support, they referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of India Vs. Indian Tobacco Association [2005 (187) ELT 162 (S.C.)]. Further, they have submitted that as per provisions of Clause 6.15 of the FTP, the appellant's were never required to pay duty on the finished goods which were destroyed. In support, they have referred to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Tyco Electronics Corporation India (P) Ltd v. CCE & ST, Bangalore [2023 (11) TMI 916-CESTAT Bangalore]. Further, he has submitted that in any case the appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rum. The judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITC's case was delivered in the year 2019; therefore, it was not before the authorities below. Therefore, he requested that the appeal may be remanded to the adjudicating authority. 6. We find force in the contention of the learned AR for the Revenue inasmuch as the duty foregone was computed after deciding the admissibility or otherwise of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus and No.22/2003-CE. It is observed that the condition for duty-free procurement of inputs, prima facie, had not been complied in the present case by the appellant. The appellant, without disputing the admissibility of the notifications or otherwise, paid the amount under protest. Later, without challenging the order of the Dep....