Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)The Customs Act, 1962
Section 3 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Customs Tariff Act, 1975 [Entire Act]
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Section 12 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950
Vikram Ispat vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai ... on 28 March, 2001
In support of his submission, reliance was placed in the case of Vikram Ispat vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai reported in 2000 (120 E.L.T. 800 (Tri.-LB) which is also relied upon by the Honble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. H. K. Moulders: 2010-TIOL-908-HC-AHM-CX wherein the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in para 16 of the aforesaid decision have held as follows:
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S Moulders India on 30 December, 2009
This is also apparent from the fact that when the goods are cleared from 100% EOU to any other place in India, central excise duty under section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act is levied and not the customs duty under the Customs Act. If it is to be regarded as import, then the duty has to be charged under Section 12 of the Customs Act, read with Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. The Revenue, it seems is confusing the measure of the tax with the nature of the tax. The nature of the duty levied on the goods from 100% EOU is excise duty and nothing else, whereas for determining the quantum of duty the measure adopted is duty leviable under Customs Act, as held by the Supreme Court in many cases referred to above. The method adopted by the law makers in recovering the tax cannot alter its character. Once it is held that the duty paid by the 100% EOU in respect of goods cleared to any place in India is excise duty, the question of dissecting the said duty into different components of basic customs duty, auxiliary duty, additional duty of customs or any other customs duty does not arise. The proforma of AR-1A on which the reliance was placed by the learned D.R., cannot change the legal position that the duty levied on 100% EOU is a duty of excise and not customs duty.
2.1 He further submitted that Rule 3(1) of CCR, 2004 does not allow CENVAT credit of basic custom duty which is chargeable under Section 12 of Customs Act, 1962; whereas in the present case the duty charged by EOU is a duty of excise charged under Section 3(1) of Central Excise Act. Further there is no restriction under Rule 3(1) of CCR, 2004 on availment of CENVAT credit of duty charged under Section 3(1) of CCR, 2004. Learned counsel admitted that there is a restriction for availing CENVAT credit for purchases made from EOU under Rule 3(7) of CCR, 2004 but the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.