CGST & CCE, Trichy Versus M\/s. EID Parry India Limited
Central Excise
2018 (8) TMI 1494 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 5-6-2018
E\/713\/2010 & E\/CO\/71\/2010 – FINAL ORDER No. 41754\/2018
Central Excise
Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) And Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial)
\nShri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Appellant
\nMs. Cynduja Crishnan, Advocate, for the Respondent.
\nORDER
\nPer: Madhu Mohan Damodhar
\nThe respondents were a 100 % EOU manufacturing neem based pesticides and organic fertilizers out of raw materials procured indigenously. They applied for exit from 100% EOU scheme for which the Development Commissioner issued a “No objection in principle letter” dated 16.06.2008 and <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n gned order dated 16.08.2010 allowed the duty exemption on in-process materials amounting to Rs. 10,25,986\/-, while upholding the remaining duty liability confirmed by the original authority. The Revenue has come in appeal against the setting aside of the demand in respect of the in-process materials. Respondents have also filed cross-objection against upholding of the remaining demand amounting to Rs. 88,97,261\/-. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n P). = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" CGST & CCE, Trichy Versus M\/s. EID Parry India LimitedCentral Excise2018 (8) TMI 1494 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 5-6-2018E\/713\/2010 & E\/CO\/71\/2010 – FINAL ORDER No. 41754\/2018Central ExciseShri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) And Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Appellant Ms. Cynduja Crishnan, Advocate, for … Continue reading “CGST & CCE, Trichy Versus M\/s. EID Parry India Limited”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13403","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13403","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13403"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13403\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13403"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13403"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13403"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, the Ld. AR Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC, reiterated the grounds of appeal. He drew our attention to Chapter 22 of the Central Excise & Customs Manual as per which, apart from the finished goods, raw materials and semi-finished goods, which were lying at the time of debonding had to be c<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts.
\n5. We find that the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in Tirumala Seung Han Textiles Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the lower appellate authority and by the Ld. Advocate will apply on all fours to the appeal on hand. The relevant portion of that decision is reproduced as under:-
\n“5.1 In respect of in-process goods, the appellants have argued that there is no authority for demanding duty. As per Para 6.18 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09, an EOU may opt out of the scheme with the approval of the Development Commissioner subject to the payment of Excise Duty. In the policy, only imported and indigenous capital goods, raw materials, components, consumables, spares and finished goods in <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n