Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Kurt O' John Shoe Components (I) Pvt. ... vs Cce on 8 October, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(158)ELT472(TRI-DEL)
JUDGMENT K.D. Mankar , Member (T)
1. The appellants are a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of shoe components' (soles & heels). They had effected certain clearances to a domestic unit without payment of duty. In the show-cause notice issued to them, it was alleged that, they are not eligible for duty exemption contained in Notification No. 2/95 dated 1.1.95 as the supply was not for export but was to a DTA unit. The adjudicating authority confirmed duty demand for Rs. 43, 61, 276/- and also ordered to pay interest Rs. 20% while deciding the apeal against the said order, the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) had observed that-vide final Order No. 32/03-B dated 1.1.2003, in their (appellant's) own case, the Tribunal allowed the exemption from payment of duty on such clearances. The said relief was granted after considering the clearances from their unit to the domestic buyers in terms of Rule 13(1)(b) read with Notification No. 47/94-CE(NT). The purchaser had in turn used the shoe components in the manufacture of finished goods (shores) which were subsequently exported.
2. The Commissioner after taking note of the above facts, however, held that the clearances under reference (involved in the instant appeal), were without the cover of CT-2 and without following Chapter X Procedure. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected. The appellants are contesting the findings in the impugned order.
3. Heard both sides.
4. It is not in dispute that the goods (soles and heels) were sold against payment in foreign exchange for manufacture and export of complete shoes and that the complete shoes were manufactured by utilising the disputed goods and the finished goods (shoes) have been actually exported. These facts have not been disputed either by the adjudicating or the appellate authorities. While the show-cause notice proposes non-availability of exemption Notification No. 2/95-CE, the orders passed by the lower authorities have also gone into the applicability of Notification No. 47/94-CE(NT) dated 22.9.94. The only ground on which, the duty liability has been confirmed is that, the appellants did not follow chapter X procedure and they did not obtain CT-2 certificates.
5. However, it is to be noted that, the Tribunal had already considered this aspect in respect of the very same appellants and passed order in their favour, after holding that such removals to a domestic customer for ultimate export would not be liable to duty. The judgment is reported in 2003 (154) ELT 651 (Tri. - Del.). Therefore, following the said judgment the instant appeal also deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we allow the appeal with all consequential reliefs in accordance with law.