Page 289 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 935
EXIM (Contd.)
work in all sectors - All transaction between EOU and DTA entered into
after necessary permission obtained from Development Commissioner -
Clarification by Joint Development Commissioner that no bar on such
activity under EXIM Policy - In terms of paragraph 9.9(b) of EXIM Policy,
1997-2002, Circulars issued by Board, particularly C.B.E. & C. Circular
No. 49/2000-Cus., dated 22-5-2000 and reply to query of Customs
Authorities by Development Commissioner, SEEPZ assessee entitled to
carry out job work on behalf of DTA on payment of duty as provided
under Notification No. 8/97-C.E. - Such clearance also supported by
clarification in C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 38/2003­Cus., dated 6-5-2003 -
Contention that combined reading of proviso to Sections 3(1) and 5A(1)
of Central Excise Act, 1944 would not entitle Central Government to
grant any exemption to an EOU when it brings goods to any other place
in India (i.e. DTA) not sustainable - Such interpretation would render
words “unless specifically provided in such notification” in Section 5A(1)
ibid otiose - Harmonious construction of Section 5A(1) ibid and proviso
thereto would be that EOU which brings excisable goods to any other
place in India would not be entitled for a general exemption notification
unless specifically provided in such a notification - Such exemption
provided under Notification No. 8/97-C.E. as amended by Notification
No. 21/97-C.E. - Transaction between assessee and DTA unit satisfying
all three conditions required under said notification - 2001 Amendment
to Section 5A ibid brought clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 5A ibid
in sync with words used in clause (i) of proviso to said section and words
used in proviso to Section 3(1) ibid - No conflict in amended provisions
of clause (ii) of proviso to Section 5A(1) ibid and said exemption
notification - Sales made by EOU to DTA unit within permissible limits
and with permission of Development Commissioner - Finding of
Tribunal in 2015 (321) E.L.T. 462 (Tribunal) that benefit of clearance at
rates applicable under Notification No. 8/97-C.E. could be denied to
assessee, affirmed — Commr. of C. Ex., Nagpur v. Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals
Ltd. (S.C.) ........................................ 14
— EPCG Scheme - Confiscation and penalty - Non-fulfilment of export
obligation - Two parallel proceedings against assessee on similar set of
facts - One with D.G.F.T. resulting in favourable order at hands of
competent authority under Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1992 - Facts and circumstances of that case to be taken into account
by Commissioner of Customs - Direction to Commissioner of Customs to
decide issue of imposition of fine and penalty de novo uninfluenced by
the order passed by the Tribunal, taking into account subsequent
development in case - Liberty to assessee to file fresh application for
waiver/reduction of fine and penalty before Commissioner for
consideration in accordance with law - Sections 111 and 112 of Customs
Act, 1962 — Orkayem Apparel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port-Export), Chennai
(Mad.) ......................................... 847
— Export of Minerals, Garnet - Pre-export restrictions/obligations -
Confiscation of goods for (1) inability to produce certificate of legally
mined minerals from concerned District Collector/transport permits
from District authorities and (2) goods being prohibited on account of
restriction imposed by Trade Facility circular issued by Commissioner of
Customs as well as instructions issued by Government of Tamil Nadu in
2013 - HELD : Plethora of documents produced by assessee to show that
impugned goods, legally mined minerals, purchased from mining licence
holder in Andhra Pradesh and transport permits issued by Department
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  289