TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 107
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ause Notice was issued for demanding amount of Rs. 76,07,052/-. Adjudicating Authority after going through the factual details dropped the demand of Rs. 54,43,820/- and confirmed the balance demand of Rs. 21,63,232/-. Being aggrieved by dropping of the demand of Rs. 54,43,820/-, the Revenue filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order has allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Being aggrieved the appellant is before us. 2. The Learned Counsel takes us through the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that while dropping the demand of Rs. 54,43,820/- the same is on account of 3 counts namely, supply to SEZ, supply to EOU, supply to Lanco Infratech. Befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly, he has held that appellant is liable to pay Rs. 54,43,820/- along with the interest and penalty. The Learned Counsel submits that this quantification is erroneous 4. Learned Counsel submits that quantification of confirmed demand of Rs. 54,43,820/- pertains to demand made under 3 headings, whereas Revenue was filed an appeal only for 1(one) heading towards EOU. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present appeal may be allowed by setting aside the impugned OIA. 5. Learned AR submits that being aggrieved by the dropping of demand, appeal has been filed by the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) should be taken in respect of the entire dropped demand for all the headings. He submits that even in case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9;ble Tribunal has held that the manufacturer is not liable for payment of duty for non-fulfilment of conditions by the Merchant Exporter. 9. In this regard, I find that the goods supplied to 100% EOU are exempted subject to the conditions of Notification No.22/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003. Cement is not notified under the same notification. As per Para 8.2 (d) of FTP gives deemed export benefits only in the case of projects under international competitive Bidding. Therefore, it is clear that the benefit of exemption cannot be given to cement cleared to EOU unit even under FTP. I find that the ACC cement (Respondent) has not disputed this. But they only disputed on the ground that it is the responsibility of the recipient who received ....