Case Law Details
DCM Hyundai Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held the benefit of notification no. 23/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 allowable to tipper body as it is not necessary that the goods cleared into DTA have to be identical to the goods exported by the EOU.
Facts- The appellants were a 100% EOU and sought permission to manufacture and export excisable goods namely Marine Freight Containers, Bodies (including cabins), Trailers and Semi Trailer, Aluminium Marine Freight Containers and Special Purpose Containers.
On verification of sales invoices it was seen that the appellants had sold in DTA, the goods in the nature of ‘tipping body’ and steel structures availing payment of concessional duty vide notification no. 23/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003. It appeared to the Department that the appellant had contravened the provisions of para 6.8 (a) of the Foreign Trade Policy in as much as the appellant had not cleared to DTA, the products similar to the goods which were exported by the unit. Two Show Cause Notices were issued proposing to demand the differential duty along with interest and to impose penalties. After due process of law, the Original Authority confirmed the demand.
In re-adjudication the Original Authority held that the Steel Structures sold in DTA are eligible for concessional rate of duty. However, the Original Authority dis-allowed the concessional rate of duty in regard to tipping bodies. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order passed by the Original Authority. Hence this appeal.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
