INDITAL TINTORIA LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) The appellant filed this appeal against order -in -appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a 100% EOU and they were clearing the goods manufactured by them to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) after getting necessary permission from the competent authority. During the month of May 2000, the appellant cleared certain goods to DTA in pursuance to the necessary clearance given by the Development Commissioner in view of Para 9.9(e) of EX1M Policy. Thereafter the appellant; in the month of September 2000 filed revised returns claiming the clearance made in the month of May 2000 under Para 9.9(b) of EXIM Policy and claiming the benefit of Notification No. 8/97. This claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority as well as by appellate Commissioner.

(3.) The contention of the appellant is that in the month of May 2000 they have obtained permission from Development Commissioner to clear the goods to DTA, in view of Para 9.9(b) of EXIM Policy as well as under Para 9.9(e) of EXIM Policy. They cleared the goods in view of the Para 9.9(e) of EXIM Policy as they had certain orders pending from their customers which were to be executed in pursuance to the Commissioner granting permission under Para 9.9(b) of EXIM Policy and due to certain reasons commitments could not be fulfilled. Therefore, in the month of September 2000 they filed a revised return claiming the clearance for the month of May under Para 9.9(b) of EXIM Policy as they have necessary permission.