M/S. Wipro Ltd vs Cce, Chennai Iv

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 5/2013 dated 30.8.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai - IV)

M/s. WIPRO Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

CCE, Chennai  IV Respondent

Appearance

Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent

CORAM

Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member

Date of Hearing / Decision: 30.09.2015

Final Order No. 41337 / 2015

The precise contention of the appellant is that the finished goods and inputs lying in stock at the time of de-bonding have suffered CVD for which the finished goods shall not be dutiable further. The appellant has claimed that on value addition it had paid the duty, adjusting the CVD paid as input credit. Therefore, set off of CVD against the ultimate duty liability cannot be denied upon clearance of the finished goods debonded But Revenue disputes that the CVD paid on the finished goods upon de-bonding cannot be claimed as set off like input credit. Such difference between the parties gave raise to dispute in the present appeal.

2. Law is well settled that the same goods shall not be doubly dutiable. Additional duty of customs is paid on import of the goods. But when the EOU has de-bonded the goods which comprised finished goods additional duty of customs which was forgone at the time of export was recovered from the de-bonding unit.

3. When the goods were finished goods and that suffered duty on debonding and when the appellant discharged excise duty liability on clearance of those finished goods claim of set off of additional duty of customs paid upon debonding does not appear to be unreasonable since such additional duty of customs was not refunded to the appellant in terms of section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. No doubt, the finished goods were not inputs, but in absence of refund of additional duty of customs to the appellant, adjusting that against ultimate excise duty liability would not defeat the spirit of law since no set off would result in abnormal and excessive taxation which is not permitted by law.

4. Learned counsel invited attention to para 17 at page 27 of the Order-in-Original of the appeal folder, where under the caption Reply to Show Cause Notice, learned adjudicating authority has extracted the different correspondences between the Department and the assessee. He argues that when all the details were furnished to the Department, there was no case under the proviso to section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and proceeding was time barred. This ground also appears to be sound as verifiable from record to set aside the proceeding holding that the proviso to section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not applicable in absence of intention to cause evasion. Therefore, appeal succeeds.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(D.N. Panda) Judicial Member

Rex

2