2019 (2) TMI 1295 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – 100% EOU – return of damaged goods – goods were damaged in transit while they were taken out for export – Granite slabs – demand of duty – case of appellant is that as the goods were not cleared to DTA, they are not liable to pay duty – Held that:- The Tribunal in the case of Tab India Granites (P) Ltd. [2017 (8) TMI 1161 – CESTAT CHENNAI] had occasion to consider the very same issue set aside the demand – demand set aside – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal Nos. E/40445 & 40446/2016 – Final Order Nos. 40334-40335/2019 – Dated:- 18-2-2019 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Ms. S. Sridevi, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts are that the appellant is an 100% EOU engaged in manufacture of granite slabs. They cleared quantity of 354 Nos. of granite slabs measuring 1230.840 square meter for export i
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
/-. Two show cause notices dated 24.11.2010 and 17.2.2011 were issued proposing to demand central excise duty along with interest and for imposition of penalty. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the excise duty of ₹ 3,22,360/- and ₹ 1,21,221/- respectively for the above goods which were not exported holding that there is no provision for remission of duty once the goods have been cleared from the factory. Aggrieved, the appellant filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide orders impugned herein upheld the same. Hence these appeals. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Ms. S. Sridevi submitted that in the instant case, the appellant had cleared the goods under bond for export and only because the vehicle carrying the goods met with an accident the goods got damaged and were brought back into EOU. The goods were never cleared in DTA and therefore the appellants are not liable to pay duty. She submitted that the authorities below have r
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the very same issue has been considered by the Tribunal holding that the demand is not sustainable. 3. The ld. AR Shri S. Govindarajan supported the findings in the impugned order. He relied upon the decision in the case of SVG Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai – III – 2008 (232) ELT 305 (Tri. Chennai). 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issue is with regard to the demand of duty for the goods that have been damaged enroute and in transit while they were taken out for export. The Tribunal in the case of Tab India Granites (P) Ltd. (supra) had occasion to consider the very same issue and followed the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Honest Bio Vet Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and set aside the demand. The relevant portion is reproduced under:- 5. It is not disputed that the goods cleared under bond for export were damaged in an accident. The appellant being an EOU is entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 24/2003 dated 31.03.2003, and that the g
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =