Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I v. M.K. Agarwal

November 26, 2021

Civil Appeal No. 2621 of 2006

A. Excise — Excise duty — Liability to pay — EXIM Policy — “Export” — Question whether the goods cleared by the respondent in DTA in terms of paragraph 9.10(b) of the EXIM Policy 2002-2007 with the permission of the Development Commissioner and against the payment in foreign exchange could be treated as “export” and, therefore, not liable to duty, by virtue of Noti. No. 8/1997 — Held, said issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Apex Court in ‘Virlon Textile’ case — Central Excise Act, 1944, S. 3 (Para 2)

Virlon Textile Ltd. v. CCE, 2007 (211) ELT 353, followed

B. Central Excise Act, 1944 — S. 3 — Excise duty — Issue as to whether the purchase of goods/raw material from another EoU would be treated as indigenously procured — Same is answered in favour of the assessee by Apex Court in its judgment in case of ‘Favourite Industries’ (Para 4)

Print 🖨 PDF 📄

(A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)

Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I ______ Appellant

M.K. Agarwal _____________________________ Respondent

Civil Appeal No. 2621 of 2006, decided on September 9, 2015

With

Civil Appeal No. 2892 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 9734 of 2011

The Order of the court was delivered by

Order

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2621 OF 2006

1. The issue involved in the present civil appeal is whether the goods cleared by the respondent in DTA in terms of paragraph 9.10(b) of the EXIM Policy 2002-2007 with the permission of the Development Commissioner and against the payment in foreign exchange could be treated as “export” and, therefore, not liable to duty under the provisions of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by virtue of Notification No. 8/1997.

2. The aforesaid issue now squarely stands covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of this Court in ‘Virlon Textile Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai [2007 (211) ELT 353].

3. Another issue is as to whether the purchase of goods/raw material from another EoU would be treated as indigenously procured.

4. This question is also answered in favour of the assessee by another judgment of this Court in ‘Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I v. Favourite Industries’ [2012 (278) ELT 145].

5. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2892 OF 2006

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9734 OF 2011

6. These appeals are also dismissed in terms of the aforesaid order passed in Civil Appeal No. 2621 of 2006.

———

You may also like