TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (5) TMI 169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Notice was issued demanding duty under Section 11A along with penalty. The Jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner had confirmed the demands under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act read with Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. In appeal the CCE relying upon - (i) Commissioner (Appeals)'s order in case of Shrishti Impex Pvt. Ltd. where in the Commissioner after discussing the provision of notification 125/84-C.E., dated 25-5-84, & the scope of the term "such goods if allowed to be sold in India" interpreted by Apex Court in SIV Industries Ltd. had granted the benefit of Notification 125/84 exemption & the logic was not found fault with for this case. (ii) In CBEC Circular No. 618/9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....T. 281 (S.C.)] on debonding & duty on finished goods is not called as it is not applicable. The decision of Kuntal Granites in case of Himalaya International (Larger Bench) has been held to be not good law. (iii) Confirmation of the demand under Section 11A read with Section 28 of the Customs Act should not render the demand bad & quoting of wrong section should not initial the proceedings made under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 & the SCN notice issued for demand of Central Duty should not initiate the proceedings. 1.3 Appeal Nos. 1598/98 to 1600/98 are filed by the same assessee who is Respondent, in Revenues appeal Supra & its Director & buyers against the order of Commissioner who pursuant to a show ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal [2003 (154) E.L.T. 580] after the decision of the Larger Bench and applying the ratio of the Larger Bench in Himalaya case especially. The following ------- "......all goods cleared to Domestic Traffic Area by an EOU, whether with the permission or without the permission of the Development Commissioner would attract duty in terms of the provision to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act..." was not upheld by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal & they remitted the matter after setting aside the judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. D12500 & 12499 of 2004 as reported in 2005 (179) E.L.T. A100 (S.C.) by an order which reads as - Delay Condoned. Appeal Admitted. Heard Parties. Impugned judgment is set aside. The matter is remitted ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the impugned order cannot be now an approved reliance. The Boards orders & circular of main Section 3(1) levy shall prevail. (b) The reliance placed by the appellant on the case of M/s. Maruti Cottex Ltd. [2005 (183) E.L.T. 393 (T)] = 2005 (120) ECR 32 (Tri.-Bang.)] where in para 7 the Tribunal held as - "7..... the clearance to DFRC holders (ARC) Holders against foreign exchange cannot come within the purview of the category of goods allowed to be sold in India in view of the restrictive interpretation of the expression ''allowed to be sold in India" by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SIV case. The clearance to DFRC holders and also to suppliers against foreign exchange cannot be treated as per with the cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de up to 25% of production by 100% EOU in DTA and with permission of the Development Commissioner. No permission is required to sell goods manufactured by 100% EOU lying with it, at the time approval is granted to debond". In this view of the matter, we hold that "Supplies" against DFRC are not covered by the relevant para of the EXIM Policy applicable to DTA sales permissible and 'allowed to be sold' as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. DFRC removals are not within the 25% quota. When the provision of the policy Paras 9.9, 9.10 and Chapter 10 and Appendix 42 of the EXIM Policy are read and the fact that as per Appendix 42, DFRC removals under Chapter 10 i.e. para 10 onwards would count towards determining the 25% of production o....