Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S. Iocee Exports Ltd vs Cce, Chennai Ii on 4 November, 2015

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

Appeal No. E/42341/2013

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.203/2013 (M-II) dated 10.9.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai  I)

M/s. IOCEE Exports Ltd.					Appellant

      
      Vs.


CCE, Chennai  II					        Respondent

Appearance Shri V. Shantharam, Advocate for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Date of Hearing / Decision: 04.11.2015 Final Order No. 41495 / 2015 Appellant submits that when imported duty free raw materials have undergone processing, certain processing loss occurred. If such processing loss is considered appellants prayer for waiver of duty and penalty is entertainable.

2. But Revenue says that when Standard Input Output norms laid down by Handbook of Procedure Volume  II is known to the industry they were aware that no further process loss is admissible.

3. Revenue is correct.

4. Heard both sides and perused the records.

5. The goods imported were subjected to Standard Input Output norm. Therefore, no further wastage or process loss is entertainable. Import is made duty-free. Such exemption is granted to ensure that the fabric imported should be fully used in manufacture of the permitted output and such output exported to fetch foreign exchange for the country. Any claim of the processed loss causes loss to foreign exchange. Therefore, appellant is directed to pay the entire duty involved in the quantum of loss of input claimed as processing loss. On such premise, the duty element is confirmed. Interest, if any, to follow.

6. So far as penalty is concerned, there is no finding as to diversion of the imported material. In such circumstance, levy of penalty may not be justified. Therefore appellant gets immunity from penalty.

7. In view of the above decision, appeal is partly allowed.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. Panda) Judicial Member Rex 2