Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.20 seconds)
Documents citing Dy Cit Cc 1(4) , Mumbai vs M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Pvt Ltd., ... on 9 August, 2021

M/S. South Asian Petrochem Limited, vs Coms Cus (Airport & Admin)Kol on 13 September, 2023

The Tribunal in the case of Solitare Machine Tools P. Ltd. (supra) has held that the goods lying in stock at the time of debonding would be liable to duty only at point of time of removal of those goods from place of manufacture. In this case, admittedly, there was no removal of goods into DTA from EOU and before the final debonding order the goods had been exported out of India under advance authorization claim. In terms of para 6.18 (e) of the Foreign Trade Policy, while between the date of issue of no dues certificate by the Customs and Central Excise Authorities and the date of final debonding order by the Development Commissioner, the EOU unit shall not be entitled to claim any duty exemption for procurement of capital goods or inputs, the unit can claim advance authorization/DEPB/duty draw back. Thus, during the intervening period between the date of no objection certificate by the Central Excise Authorities and the date of issue of final debonding order by the Development 7 Customs Appeal No. 281 of 2011 Commissioner, an EOU can export the finished goods under claim for advance authorization/DEPB/duty draw back and that no excise duty can be charged in respect of such goods as the same have not been cleared into DTA. In view of this, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1