TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 429
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....toms duty has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. 2. The issue, in brief, is that the appellants are 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) engaged in manufacture of granite slabs, dimensional blocks and other articles of granite. The appellant had also imported as well as domestically procured capital goods, raw materials, inputs, etc., in terms of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dt.31.03.2003 and Notification No. 22/2003CE dt.31.03.2003 during the period from 01.04.2006 to 31.08.2007. The department felt that they had cleared certain consignments to DTA without payment of applicable duty and also certain consignments were cleared to their sister concern, which was also an EOU without following the prescribed procedure and some differen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dopted by the adjudicating authority and he did not pay duty as there was no Central Excise duty on goods under CETH 2516. Insofar as transfer of goods from one EOU to another EOU, it is his submission that goods were transferred to their sister concern and were duly accounted for, though the department is not agreeing based on certain observations regarding nonaddition in the NFE, etc. He has further submitted that even though initially they had not followed the requisite procedure nor obtained any prior approval for such clearance from one 100% EOU to another 100% EOU as provided in the policy, they later on obtained post facto approval from the Development Commissioner, who is the regulatory authority for EOU, and therefore, the matter s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the following case laws. a) Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner [1991 (8) TMI 83 (SC)] b) CST Vs Convergys India Pvt Ltd [2010 (20) STR 166 (P&H)] c) Adfert Technologies Pvt Ltd Vs UOI [2019 (11) TMI 282 (P&H)] upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI Vs Adfert Technologies Pvt Ltd [2020 (3) TMI 188 (SC)] 6. Learned Advocate has vehemently opposed the observations that shortage was notified at the Hosur EOU on the grounds that movements were made under transit forms given by the mining authorities and e-way bills and details of receipts by Hosur unit and there is no difference as mentioned in the findings. Further, as per Circular No. 88/98-Cus dt.02.12.1998, the Range Officer should have ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 4/2005-Cus dt.31.01.2005 8. Learned AR, on the other hand, has reiterated the findings of the Commissioner and has also pointed out that in the appellant's own case, the Bangalore Bench, vide order dt.09.06.2010, as reported in [2010 (6) TMI 686], inter alia, held that dimensional granite blocks exported by EOU from its quarries were not the export products as specified in LOP prior to 04.05.2005. It also observed that they were entitled for certain exemption benefit under Notification No. 2/1995 subject to conditions of entitlement, except permission from DC, as regards the DTA clearances. 9. Heard both sides and perused the records. 10. We find that essentially there are two broad issues involved in the present appeal. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... blocks into slabs. They have also submitted that the department itself in the past in respect of certain SCNs., has held that their product would be classifiable under Chapter 25 and therefore, they cannot now take a stand that the same would be now covered under Chapter 68. 12. Insofar as clearances to another EOU are concerned, we find that basic ground has been that there is procedural breach and the quantity cleared from appellant's EOU to another EOU has not been fully accounted for. Per contra, the appellants have claimed that it was cleared under certain statutory permissions issued by the Mining department and the entire quantity has been received at recipient EOU. Further, even though they had not got permission for such cleara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e total clearances, which will have a bearing on the duty liability. Therefore, to that extent, appellants will have to satisfy the receipt of the entire quantity by their sister concern (EOU). 15. Insofar as demand for non-fulfilment of condition under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dt.31.03.2003 and Notification No. 22/2003-CE dt.31.03.2003, there is no allegation that such imported goods were not used by them in their unit for production or processing of the goods. However, there are many conditions subject to which these benefits are extended and the appellants will have to satisfy that all the conditions including achievement of NFE, etc., have been fulfilled barring the irregularity of clearance to another EOU without any approval of....