Case Law Details
Unitech International Vs C.C.C. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
The fact of the case are that the appellant is a 100% EOU and have cleared paper waste after segregation process of waste imported during the period October, 2003 to January, 2005 on payment of excise duty by availing the benefit of concessional Notification No. 23/2003 dated 31.03.2003, read with para 6.8 (A&E) of the EXIM Policy 2002 to 2007.
The main thrust of the Revenue is that the activity undertaken by the appellant for segregation were not covered by the definition of Manufacture w.e.f. 01.04.2002 as per EXIM Policy 2002 to 2007. Therefore, they are not entitled to get the benefit of Notification No. 23/03 to avail the benefit thereof for payment of duty at concessional rate.
The said observation of the authorities below is against the decisions of this Tribunal in appellant’s own case cited herein above wherein it has been held as under:-
“8. We find from the record that there is no dispute that the appellant had been granted LOP No. PER:92(2001)/seepz/eou-47/2001-02, dated 18-9-2001 by the Development Commissioner, SEEPZ, Mumbai for segregation of ferrous and non-ferrous scrap or Computer and Electric scrap. It is also seen that the said activity was considered as an activity of manufacture by the authorities, which is reiterated by DGFT vide Circular No. 01/92/182/282/Amo4/VCII/431, dated 29-10-2004, wherein the DGFT has clearly indicated that the unit already set up prior to 1-4-2002 have to be treated differently from the unit set up after 1-4-2002. In other words, an unit engaged in segregation activity, which was set up prior to 1-4-2002 would be continued to be treated as manufacturing concern, as for the entire period original LOP, for the purpose of fulfilment of export obligation and grant of other benefits available under the Foreign Trade Policy and Customs and Central Excise laws. This circular has not been withdrawn by DGFT authorities. As is recorded by us earlier, it is undisputed that the appellant’s unit was set up in 2001 for segregation of scrap from imported burnt transformer; considered activity as manufacture. If that be so and there being no dispute that the appellant had segregated the scrap and cleared from EOU will amount to an activity of manufacture. In view of this, we find that there cannot be any demand of Customs duty from the appellant as has been held by this Tribunal in the case of Sanjari Twisters (supra), Dupont Synthetics (supra), Amitex Silk Mills (supra) and various other decisions.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
