Page 135 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] COMMR. OF C. EX., NAGPUR v. UNIVERSAL FERRO & ALLIED CHEMICALS LTD. 21

standard for interpreting goods mentioned in the Tariff Act, the purpose
and object of which is completely different.”
22. This Court has held, that it is a settled principle in Excise classifica-
tion that the definition of one statute having a different object, purpose and
scheme cannot be applied mechanically to another statute. It has further been
held, that the conditions or restrictions contemplated by one statute having a dif-
ferent object and purpose should not be lightly and mechanically imported and
applied to a fiscal statute.
23. It is also equally well-settled that the first principle of interpretation
of plain and literal interpretation has to be adhered to. We are therefore of the
considered view, that the narrower scope of the term ‘sale’ as found in the Sale of
Goods Act, 1930 cannot be applied in the present case. The term ‘sale’ and ‘pur-
chase’ under the Central Excise Act, 1944, if construed literally, it would give a
wider scope and also include transfer of possession for valuable consideration
under the definition of the term ‘sale’.
24. The next issue that requires consideration is as to whether under
the EXIM Policy, UFAC was entitled to carry out the job work for TISCO and
whether it was entitled to exemption from payment of duty under the Exemption
Notification.
25. It will be relevant to refer to the relevant clauses of Chapter 9 of the
EXIM Policy. As per para 9.1 of the said EXIM Policy, units undertaking to ex-
port their entire production of goods may be set up under the EOU Scheme. As
Per para 9.9, the entire production of EOU units is required to be exported sub-
ject to the following :
“(a) Unless specifically prohibited in the LOP/LOI, rejects may be sold in
the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA), on prior intimation to the Customs
authority. Such sales shall be counted against DTA sale entitlement
under paragraph 9.9(b) of the Policy. Sale of rejects shall be subject to
payment of duties as applicable to sale under para 9.9(b).
(b) DTA sale upto 50% of the FOB value of exports may be made subject
to payment of applicable duties and fulfilment of minimum NFEP
prescribed in Appendix 1 of the Policy…..”
26. It will also be relevant to refer to Para 9.17(b) of the EXIM Policy,
which reads thus :
“(b) EOU/EPZ units may undertake job work for export, on behalf of
DTA units, with the permission of Assistant Commissioner of Cus-
toms, provided the goods are exported direct from the EOU/EPZ
units. For such exports, the DTA units will be entitled for refund of
duty paid on the inputs by way of Brand Rate of duty drawback.”
27. It can therefore be seen, that under Para 9.9(a) of the EXIM Policy,
EOU is entitled to sell the rejects in the DTA on prior intimation to the Customs
authorities. Such sales are to be counted against DTA sale entitlement under par-
agraph 9.9(b) of the EXIM Policy. The sale of rejects shall be subject to payment
of duties as applicable to sale under paragraph 9.9(b) of the EXIM Policy.
28. Under paragraph 9.9(b) of the EXIM Policy, DTA sale upto 50% of
the FOB value of exports is also permitted subject to payment of applicable du-
ties and fulfilment of minimum Net Foreign Exchange Earning as a Percentage of
exports (NFEP) as prescribed in Appendix-1 of the Policy.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  183