Case Law Details
Datafield India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that as all the details are furnished based on which permission for DTA clearance was granted. Accordingly, allegation of willful suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty is without any factual basis. Hence demand set aside as time barred.
Facts- The appellant holds Central Excise Registration and is a 100% EOU which is engaged in the manufacture of telephone cords falling under Chapter 8517 of CETA 1985. They imported raw materials without payment of Customs duty, Special Customs Duty (SCD) and Additional Customs duty (ACD). The manufactured goods were exported as well as cleared into Domestic Tariff Area (DTA).
For such clearances into DTA, the appellant availed concessional rate of 50% Customs duty, SCD and ACD under Notification No.2/95 dated 04.01.1995. In terms of the said notification for effecting DTA clearances, the appellant had to furnish details of foreign exchange earnings as percentage of export to the Development Commissioner, MEPZ, Chennai. Accordingly, the appellant had submitted necessary details, vide their letters dated 10.01.1998 and 01.02.1999. Appellant got the approval from the Development Commissioner, MEPZ, Chennai to avail the exemption (partial) under Notification No.2/95 dated 04.01.1995 for their DTA clearances.
It appeared to the department that the appellant has contravened the conditions stipulated under Notification No.2/95 read with EXIM Policy 1997-2002 in as much as they had furnished incorrect details to MEPZ and wrongly obtained approval for clearance of goods to DTA sales.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
