Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Winsome Yarns Ltd vs Cce, Chandigarh on 16 June, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST BLOCK NO. 2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI COURT III CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 4228 OF 2004-EX [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 442/CE/CHD/2004 dated 17.06.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh] For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical); Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? M/s. Winsome Yarns Ltd. Appellant Vs. CCE, Chandigarh Respondent Appearance: Shri Rupender Singh, Advocate for the appellants; Shri K.P. Singh, D.R. for the Revenue Coram: Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical); Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing/decision: 16th June, 2009 ORAL ORDER NO._________________ dated __________
Per M. Veeraiyan:
This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner No. 442/CE/CHD/2004 dated 17.6.2004.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The appellant is a 100% E.O.U. and manufacture yarn and clear them mainly for export and the quantity permitted by the Development Commissioner into DTA. In respect of permitted quantity, it is claimed that the appellant supplied the same as inputs to manufacturer of excisable goods who ultimately exported the said product. For this purpose, it is claimed that they produced CT-2 certificate issued in favour of the recipient unit by the officer of the in-charge of the recipient unit. On the basis of the said certificate it was claimed that they have effected the clearances duty free in terms of Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with the notification No. 43/2001-CE (NT) dated 26.6.2001. The original authority held that as a 100% E.O.U. they are governed by special provisions and, therefore, they cannot avail the benefit under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules and the said order has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Learned Advocate submits that as a 100% E.O.U., clearances effected by them to DTA were within the permissible limit as per EXIM Policy. Rule 19 does not exclude 100% E.O.U. from its purview. He also relies on the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Kurt-O-John Shoe Components (I) Ltd. vs. Commr. of C.Ex & Cus., Noida, reported in 2003 (154) ELT 651 (Tri.-Del.) and in the case of Paras Fab International vs. CCE, Jaipur, reported in 2003 (153) ELT 549 (Tri.-Del.) which held that Rule 13 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 was applicable in respect of clearances made from 100% E.O.U. He also relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Madurai vs. Renuga Soft-X Towels, reported in 2007 (217) ELT 589 (Tri.-Chennai) wherein it has been held that Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the notification No. 43/2001-CE(NT) are pari materia to Rule 13 of erstwhile Rules, 1944 and Notification No. 47/2001-CE(NT) issued under Rule 13.
5. Learned SDR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).
6. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. There is no dispute before us that the clearances made by the appellants is beyond the limit prescribed by the Development Commissioner. In respect of such clearances duty shall be payable, if they are made to general category of buyers. In the present case, the appellant have chosen to supply to special category of buyers covered under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. We agree with the submission of the learned Advocate that Rule 19 does not exclude the clearances from 100% E.O.U. from its purview. The decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Kurt-O-John Shoe Components (I) Ltd. and Paras Fab Internatioanl (supra) support the contention of the learned Advocate.
7. In the light of the above, we set aside the order of the lower authorities and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
(M. VEERAIYAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) (P.K. DAS) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) RK