Page 213 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] ARIES DYECHEM INDUSTRIES v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD 603

hibited from outsourcing goods imported duty free for manufacturing to other
persons - Assessee entitled to benefits of Notification Nos. 93/2004-Cus. and
32/2005-Cus. - Demand of duty, interest and consequential penalties not sus-
tainable. [2010 (257) E.L.T. 113 (Tribunal); 2014 (299) E.L.T. A88 (Guj.); 1994 (73)
E.L.T. 497 (S.C.); 2005 (190) E.L.T. 257 (Tribunal) relied on; 1988 (37) E.L.T. 294 (Tri-
bunal) distinguished]. [paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]
Judicial discipline - Order of Commissioner (Appeals) to be given cre-
dence by Adjudicating Authority unless distinguished on merits. [para 7]
Appeals allowed
CASES CITED
Aries Dyechem Industries v. Commissioner — 2010 (257) E.L.T. 113 (Tribunal)
— Relied on .................................................................................................................................. [Paras 3, 8]
Collector v. Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. — 1988 (37) E.L.T. 294 (Tribunal)
— Distinguished ................................................................................................................. [Paras 3, 4, 11]
Commissioner v. Aries Dyechem Industries — 2014 (299) E.L.T. A88 (Guj.) — Relied on ....... [Paras 3, 8]
Commissioner v. Somaiya Organo Chem — 2007 (213) E.L.T. 130 (Tribunal) — Referred ............. [Para 3]
Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. v. Collector — 1994 (73) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.)
— Relied on ........................................................................................................................ [Paras 3, 4, 8, 10]
Tetra Pak (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2005 (190) E.L.T. 257 (Tribunal) — Relied on ................. [Paras 3, 9]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri N.K. Tiwari, Consultant, for the Appellant.
Shri D. Kanjani, Superintendent (AR), for the
Respondent.
[Order per : Ramesh Nair, Member (J)]. - The brief facts of the case are
that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of dye and dye intermediates
falling under Chapters 32 & 29 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act,
1975 and is holding Central Excise Registration. They are importing raw materi-
als required for the manufacture of their final product. The appellant had im-
ported Beta Napthol under DEEC and Target Plus Scheme. The said imported
goods was removed under job work challan for conversion into Gamma Acid to
M/s. Bondal Chemical Ltd. and M/s. Shivam Chemicals, Vapi and M/s. Shree
Chemicals, Vapi. After processing the said imported goods, they sent back
Gamma Acid on their sales invoices. The case of the department is that since the
Beta Napthol was cleared under DEEC and Target Plus Scheme under Notifica-
tion No. 93/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-2004 and Notification No. 32/2005-Cus., dated
8-4-2005, as per the said notifications there is a condition that the license under
Advance Authorization Scheme/certificate under Target Plus Scheme and goods
imported against it shall not be transferred or sold. The allegation of the depart-
ment is that since the appellant have transferred the goods imported under
DEEC and Target Plus Scheme to their job worker, they have contravened the
condition of the notifications. This allegation of the adjudicating authority is
based on the fact that the job worker returned the Gamma Acid under the sales
invoices, therefore, the transaction between the appellant and the job worker is of
sale and purchase. Consequently the condition of the notification has been vio-
lated, accordingly, the demand of foregone customs duty has been confirmed
along with penalties and interests in the impugned order, therefore, the present
appeals filed by the appellant.
2. Shri N.K. Tiwari, Learned Consultant appearing on behalf of the ap-
pellant submits that the appellant have sent the imported Beta Napthol for the
job work to the job worker under the cover of Annexure-II challan. The appellant
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  213