Page 130 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

16 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

Dharangadhra Chemical Works v. Dharangadhara Municipality
— (1985) 4 SCC 92 — Referred ..................................................................................................... [Para 15]
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab — (2014) 3 SCC 92 — Relied on ................................................... [Para 47]
M. Katunanidhi v. Union of India — (1979) 3 SCC 431 — Referred ................................................. [Para 15]
Ratan Lal Adukia v. Union of India — (1989) 3 SCC 537 — Referred .............................................. [Para 15]
Sarla Performance Fibers Ltd. v. Commissioner
— 2016 (336) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) — Relied on ......................................................................... [Paras 15, 58]
Siv Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2000 (117) E.L.T. 281 (S.C.) — Relied on ............. [Paras 15, 56, 58]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATIONS CITED
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 67/98-Cus., dated 14-9-1998 ..................................................... [Paras 6, 10, 16, 32]
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 74/99-Cus., dated 5-11-1999 ..................................................... [Paras 6, 10, 16, 32]
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 49/2000-Cus., dated 22-5-2000 ........................................ [Paras 16, 32, 33, 34, 38]
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 38/2003-Cus., dated 6-5-2003 .................................................................... [Para 39]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri B. Krishna Prasad, AOR, for the Appellant.
M/s. S. Narain & Co., AOR, for the Respondent.
[Judgment]. - Being aggrieved by the judgments and orders dated 21-10-
2005 [2015 (321) E.L.T. 462 (Tri.-Mumbai)] and 7-7-2006 passed by the Customs,
Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai (hereinaf-
ter referred to as “CESTAT”) thereby, allowing the appeals filed by the respond-
ent-Assessee and its Chairman being Appeal Nos. E-2691-2693/2003 arising out
of Order-in-Original Nos. 14-20 of 2003, dated 23-6-2003, Order-in-Original No.
21 of 2003, dated 23-6-2003 and Appeal No. E/1976/2004 arising out of Order-in-
Original Nos. 19-20/2004, dated 15-3-2004 and dismissing the appeal filed by the
Revenue being Appeal No. E/1607/2006-Mum. arising out of order of the Com-
missioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Nagpur dated 14-2-2006 in Ap-
peal No. SVS/91/NGP-B/2006, the Revenue is before this Court.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeals are as under :
The respondent - Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals Ltd., Maneck Na-
gar, Tumsar (hereinafter referred to as “UFAC”) is 100% Export Oriented
Unit (“EOU” for short) approved by the Secretariat for Industrial Ap-
provals, Department of Industrial Development in the Ministry of Indus-
try, Government of India. UFAC was engaged in the manufac-
ture/processing and clearance of Ferro Manganese and Silicon Manga-
nese falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff
Act, 1985. UFAC cleared these items for export as well as in Domestic
Tariff Area (hereinafter referred to as “DTA”) on payment of Central Ex-
cise duty.
3. The Central Intelligence Unit of the Central Excise Headquarters vis-
ited the unit of UFAC on 19-9-2001 on getting information from the Central Ex-
cise Audit party that UFAC being an EOU was indulging in the job work activity
of conversion of raw material supplied by M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd.,
Jamshedpur (hereinafter referred to as “TISCO”). In the view of the Revenue, the
same was not allowed in terms of EXIM Policy of 1997-2002 (hereinafter referred
to as “EXIM Policy”).
4. During the course of scrutiny of the records, the officers noticed, that
UFAC was having a Memorandum of Agreement dated 28-12-1999 with TISCO
for conversion of Manganese Ore/Coke into prime Silicon Manganese. As per
the agreement, TISCO was to supply Manganese Ore and Coke/Coal free of cost

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  178