Principal Commissioner Of Gst& Central ... vs Annur Cotton Mills on 26 June, 2023
10. The duty demand on finished goods was defended
by the learned Counsel by submitting that the goods
having been exported the demand cannot sustain. It is an
admitted fact, in the Show Cause Notice as well as the
OIO that these goods have been exported. At the time of
such export assessee has paid duty as per provisions of
Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the export
clearances. The Tribunal in the case of M/s. Bhati &
Company Vs CCE, 2019 (9) TMI 1500 CESTAT New Delhi
had set aside the demand of duty raised invoking proviso
to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act without
availment of Notification No. 23/2003. It was observed
therein that the finished goods having been exported the
duty demand cannot sustain. We do not find any grounds
to take a different view. The goods having been exported,
the differential duty demand cannot sustain. Ordered
accordingly. It needs to be mentioned that though
initially, the appellant had contended that the duty on
semi-finished goods and finished goods is payable as per
proviso to Section 3(1) availing the benefit of notification
no. 23/2003, this claim was given up at the time of
hearing. It is argued by the learned Counsel that the Apex
Court in the case of universal Ferro and Allied Chemicals
13
Appeal. Nos.