AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 134
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....86, using 249 Job Work Challans issued under stamp and seal of jurisdictional authorities. Export Obligation was fulfilled; Remittances received; DGFT redeemed all 9 Licenses and Customs cancelled the Bonds executed. Revenue issued an SCN dated 30.9.2003 for Rs.1.22 Cr, alleging that the appellants misrepresented before DFGT in obtaining SION; imported excess 980.275 MTs PCE and diverted goods for job work to sister concern. Appellant paid Rs.54.16 Lakhs during investigation; the SCN issued was not adjudicated till 2009, Appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court with a Writ Petition No.2511/ 2009. Hon'ble High Court, vide Order dated 25.1.2010, disposed of the Petition, as Revenue gave undertaking to decide the SCN in a time bound period. Commissioner Export adjudicated SCN; though he did not uphold allegation of excess of import, held that condition of notification Custom Notification 30/97 was violated on ground that job work was without permission and as such goods are to be treated as diverted. He confirmed the demand of Rs.1, 22, 84,534 and equal penalty under Section 114A and penalty of Rs.6 Lakhs on M/s. SCF. 2. Hence, Appeal Nos. C/890/2010 and C/891/2010 were fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T of raw material is related to 980.275 MT whereas the same is not related. He submits that the Bench may consider to recall the impugned order and remand the matter to Adjudicating Authority and direct to dispose of the matter after the Hon'ble Supreme Court decides the UOI Vs Mangali Civil Appeal as ordered by Mumbai Tribunal in SEAMEC LTD. He relies on the following cases: • Mangali Impex Ltd (SC) - 2020 (371) ELT A226 and 2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del.) • Seamec Ltd (Tri-Mum) - 2018 (364) ELT 611 and 2019 (367) ELT A19 • SRF Ltd (Tri-Delhi) - 2019 (367) ELT 457 (Tri. Del.) • Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange (SC) - 2008 (230) ELT 358 • Aditya Birla Novo Ltd. (HC-Kar) - 2021 (378) ELT 42 • Sant Lal Gupta (SC) - 2010 (262) ELT 6 • Suncity Strips and Tubes Pvt Ltd. (SC) - 2022 (379) ELT 417 • Beriwala Impex Pvt. Ltd. (Tri-Kol)- Final Order No.75125/2022 dated 23.02.2022 4. Learned Counsel submits that for the appellants submits, during the hearing and vide written submissions dated 7-3-19 and 18-3-19 that the SCN proceeds on Excess imports than requi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat Exim Policy permits job work; A minor quantity of goods manufactured through job worker as per Para 3.5 of EXIM policy as Actual User; it is not violation of Custom Notification Custom Notification 30/97; taking permission for sending Imported goods as replenishment, for job work (though Assistant Commissioner permitted) is not a mandatory and essential condition; it is procedural, directory or technical condition; therefore there is no breach of condition of notification. Disallowing exemption benefit by misconstruing and on technical ground is defeating and frustrating the purpose, object and spirit of beneficial notification; there is no bar on completing export obligation by the goods sent for job work; there is no mandate that job work cannot be carried out without permission or intimation. He relies on the following cases: • CC (Prev) Amritsar Vs Malwa Industries Ltd. 2009 (235) ELT 214 (SC) • CC (Prev) Mumbai vs. M. Ambalal & Co. 2010 (260) ELT 487 (SC) • Maheshwari Solvent Extraction Ltd Vs CCE, Nagpur 2014 (299) ELT 116 (Tri. Bom) • Stump Schule & Somappa Ltd. Vs CC (Exports), Chennai, 2005 (190) ELT 257, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter. No. 214/1986Central Excise Dated: 25/3/1986 provides detailed process for Exemption to specified items if manufactured in a factory as a job work and used in the manufacture of final products. responsibility to produce evidence that the said supplied goods have been used or removed in the manner prescribed in notification is on the appellant and they have not produced any evidence in support of job work is produced by the Appellants. 9. Learned Authorised Representative submits that the order relies on statements, particularly from Shri Kamal Khandelwal, admitting that excess PCE was diverted to SCF's factory for manufacture and subsequent sale in the domestic market, in violation of advance license conditions; it also notes that the transactions with certain firms for PCE purchases by SCF were "paper transactions" (Refer OIO, Para 8, 16); while the EXIM Policy may permit job work in certain scenarios, but in this specific case, the job work arrangement between SCI and SCF resulted in a violation because, SCI was a "Manufacturer Exporter" and the provisions for job work transfer of duty-free goods were primarily for "Merchant Exporters"; the PCE transferred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rb the findings of this Court in Canon India (supra) insofar as the issue of limitation is concerned. (iv) The Delhi High Court in Mangali Impex (supra) observed that Section 28(11) could not be said to have cured the defect pointed out in Sayed Ali (supra) as the possibility of chaos and confusion would continue to subsist despite the introduction of the said section with retrospective effect. In view of this, the High Court declined to give retrospective operation to Section 28(11) for the period prior to 08.04.2011 by harmoniously construing it with Explanation 2 to Section 28 of the Act, 1962. We are of the considered view that the decision in Mangali Impex (supra) failed to take into account the policy being followed by the Customs department since 1999 which provides for the exclusion of jurisdiction of all other proper officers once a show cause notice by a particular proper officer is issued. It could be said that this policy provides a sufficient safeguard against the apprehension of the issuance of multiple show cause notices to the same assessee under Section 28 of the Act, 1962. Further, the High Court could not have applied the doctrine of harmonious con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces impugned therein shall be restored for adjudication by the proper officer under Section 28. c. Where the orders-in-original passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 28 have been challenged before the High Courts on the ground of maintainability due to lack of jurisdiction of the proper officer to issue show cause notices, the respective High Court shall grant eight weeks' time to the respective assessee to prefer appropriate appeal before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). d. Where the writ petitions have been disposed of by the High Court and appeals have been preferred against them which are pending before this Court, they shall be disposed of in accordance with this decision and this Court shall grant eight weeks' time to the respective assessee to prefer appropriate appeals before the CESTAT. e. Where the orders of CESTAT have been challenged before this Court or the respective High Court on the ground of maintainability due to lack of jurisdiction of the proper officer to issue show cause notices, this Court or the respective High Court shall dispose of such appeals or writ petitions in acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Notification No.30/97. Learned Commissioner concluded that there is no mandate for the appellants to send the goods for job-work in terms of the said Notification. We find that learned Counsel for the appellants relies on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Galaxy Surfactants - 2023 (384) ELT 357. This Bench while passing the Final Order dated 05.07.2019 did not have the benefit of this judgment. We find that Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under: 19. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to set out the relevant conditions in the said Notification as well as the relevant paragraphs in the EXIM Policy. 20.1 Condition (i) and Condition (vii) as contained in the said General Exemption Notification is quoted as under : "(i) that the materials imported, are covered by an Actual User Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (hereinafter referred to as the said certificate), issued by the Licensing Authority in the form of specified in the schedule annexed to this notification, in respect of the value, quantity, description, quality and technical characteristics. (vii) exempt materials shall not be disposed of or uti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an Actual User Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate issued by the Licencing Authority as well as the condition that the exempt materials shall not be disposed of or utilized in any manner except for utilization in discharge of the export obligation or for replenishment of such materials and the materials so replenished shall not be sold or transferred to any other person. This means that the exempt materials can either be utilized for discharge of an export obligation or for replenishment of exempt materials and the exempt materials so replenished cannot be sold or transferred to any other person. It is not in dispute that the export obligation has been met. It has been argued on behalf of Appellant that the exempt materials have been diverted to M-3 unit at Tarapur, instead of V-23 Taloja unit and that, therefore, there has been a transfer resulting in breach of condition (vii). It is not in dispute that the V-23 Taloja unit as well as the M-3 Tarapur unit are units of the Respondent. The Respondent is a 'person' as denned in paragraph 3.37 of the EXIM Policy where a company is also included in the said definition. 'Actual User (Industrial)' is denned to mean a person who utiliz....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fact mentioned that the other units are not registered as branch units of the petitioner and that the petitioner has not paid renewal fee for registration, for the branches, and has on the other hand, paid renewal fee of Rs. 10 only for itself. Logically, an inference of sale has been drawn. We do not agree with this proposition. The effect of registration is only to enable a dealer to collect the tax payable by him from the purchaser. It does not have the effect of carving out an independent existence for the registered unit or to delink it from manufactured in the petitioner-unit was transferred to other units of SIDECO. there was no transfer of property in goods from one person to another and hence no sale liable to tax under the Act. The turnover of Rs. 1,60,746 was therefore, rightly excluded in the original assessment and was wrongly brought to assessment by the order of the Deputy Commissioner." (Emphasis supplied) 24. We note that the Kerala High Court while considering the units of Petitioner in the decision above observed that the effect of registration was only to enable a dealer to collect tax payable by him to the purchaser, but it did not have....