M/s Nitin Spinners Ltd. Versus CGST. CC & CE, Jodhpur-I
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 156 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 30-10-2018
Appeal No. E/52451/2018-DB – Final Order No. 53220/2018
Central Excise
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical)
Shri S.C. Jain, Advocate – for the appellant
Shri S.K. Bansal, D.R. – for the respondent
ORDER
Per Mrs. Archana Wadhwa:
After hearing both the sides, we find that the appellant is a 100% EOU and is authorised to sell their product in the DTA, after seeking the permission of Development Commissioner. The appellant applied to the Development Commissioner for clearance of the goods up to the extent of value of Rs.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
phical mistake, and amended the DTA sale entitlement certificate by replacing the amount of Rs. 240.66 lakhs to Rs. 204.66 lakhs. It is also seen that vide their letter dated 18th Sept. 2002, the Assistant Development Commissioner opined that the excess sale of Rs. 36 lakhs may be treated as advance DTA sale and be adjusted against future DTA sale entitlements. Ld. Advocate informs us that the said excess sale was so adjusted against the future sales made by them. Further, the Assistant Development Commissioner addressed another letter dated 7.2.2006 to the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise proposing to recover the differential duty amount on excess DTA sale of Rs. 36 lakhs granted to the unit.
3. In the above, proceedings were initiated
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ner allowing the appellant to clear the goods in DTA to the extent of Rs. 240.66 lakhs. The subsequent detection of mistake at the end of the Development Commissioner, on account of an audit objection raised, resulting in amendment of the certificate by him will have no bearing to the goods already cleared in terms of a proper, correct and legitimate certificate issued by the Development Commissioner issued initially. As such, it cannot be said that when the goods were cleared, the appellant was not having any valid certificate and the same were cleared against them against an invalid certificate.
5. Apart from above, we also find that the said excess clearances stand adjusted against the clearances for the future period, in which case no
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =