TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (6) TMI 111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... (N.T.), dated 1-9-1998 issued under the Customs & Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995. In the impugned order, he has also demanded the drawback, which had been granted to the appellants in terms of Section 75(2) of the Customs Act and directed the appellants to pay the same to the government forthwith. He has also confirmed interest besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 22,00,000/- on the appellants in terms of Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act. 2. The appellant's contention is that they are a partnership firm, which is a DTA unit. They had used the spare capacity available with M/s. Karle Inter- national, a 100% EOU and exported such garments and thereafter they submitted evidence for claim of drawback. The same was sanctioned an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e his communication dated 28-7-1999 enabling them to get their goods manufactured through a 100% EOU factory and hence they say there was no suppression in the matter. They contend that merely because they have used the spare capacity of 100% EOU by itself will not preclude them from the claim of duty drawback. They contend that Clause 2(c) is required to be read down as to apply only to 100% EOUs in respect of goods owned by them and not in respect of goods manufactured/exported by them for and on behalf of the DTAs. They contend that Clause 2(c) of the Notification does not place any such embargo and the entire case of the department is based upon an erroneous interpretation. They contend that the bar in Clause 2(c) applies only to goods ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er. 3. We have heard learned Advocate Shri Naresh Thacker and learned JCDR, Smt. Shobha L. Chary. 4. The learned Advocate pointed to several Circulars issued by the Ministry of Finance like Circular No. 66/98-Cus., dated 15-9-1998 in respect of executing the bond; and Circular 67/98-Cus., dated 14-9-1998 in respect of sub-contracting; Circular No. 74/99-Cus., dated 5-11-1999 issued by Ministry of Finance and Circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs dated 5-11-1999 in Circular No. 74/99-Cus. wherein they have clarified that the shipping bills can be filed by DTA unit when goods are manufactured in the 100% EOU unit. He submits that although the Circular refers to the shipping bill to contain the details as to where it was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the facts of the case. 5. Learned JCDR contended that the appellants had suppressed the fact of manufacturing of the goods in the 100% EOU unit by not filling the Column 7 of the shipping bill. She submitted that the findings recorded by the Commissioner is just and proper and required to be upheld. 6. On a careful consideration of the matter, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the goods were manufactured in the spare capacity of the EOU unit by DTA unit i.e. the appellant. The circulars issued by the Board in this regard clearly permit such an activity and, therefore, there is no specific clause in the Notification in question prohibiting the manufacture of goods by a DTA unit in the 100% EOU unit. The Board, in the Ci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proof of export, which is not disputed. The only question raised is that they have not filled the Column 7 of shipping bill to indicate that the goods were manufactured in 100% EOU. This point has already been answered by the Tribunal in the case of Leela Scottish Lace Ltd. and held that demand amounts to misdelcaration. Further, we notice by Circular 74/99-Cus., dated 5-11-1999 issued by the Board clarifying the benefit in Para 4 of the Circular 67/98-Cus., dated 14-9-98 to EOU/EPZ units. We, further find that this very question was examined by the Tribunal in the case of Leela Scottish Lace Ltd. v. CC (supra) and upheld the manufacture of goods by a DTA unit in the EOU/EPZ unit on job work basis and exporting the same claiming drawback. I....