Page 104 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

14 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to vari-
ous Notifications and, according to him, a conjoint reading of the same should
bring home the position that there is no restriction or prohibition imposed by the
Customs Act, 1962 (in short ‘Act’) for claim of drawback on job work carried out
by a 100% EOU. Any additional conditions imposed by Notification would thus
have to be viewed as impermissible.
5. The petitioner reiterates that the chemicals that were utilised in the
job work were subject to duty. An interim order has been passed by this Court on
11-6-1999 in W.P. No. 9789 of 1999 in the case of Arun Processors Limited (Peti-
tioner in W.P. No. 9789 of 1999) permitting the petitioner to proceed with busi-
ness as usual subject to the petitioner paying applicable excise duty on all raw
materials and inputs that have been utilised in the manufacturing process. This
Writ Petition stands disposed on 15-11-2001.
6. Let us now examine the Notifications cited, in the context of the facts
narrated above. The first of the Notifications relied on is 31/1999, dated 20-5-
1999, which provides for new duty drawback rates, effective 1-6-1999. This Noti-
fication confirms that the rates of drawback specified therein shall not be appli-
cable to export of commodities/products, if such commodities/products are as
per clause 2(b) thereof, manufactured and/or exported in discharge of export
obligation against an advance licence issued under the Duty Exemption Scheme
of Export and Import Policy in force.
7. Then we come to Circular No. 67 of 1998, dated 14-9-1998. The Circu-
lar is relevant in entirety and is extracted in full hereunder :
Government of India
Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue)
Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi
Subject : 100% EOUs/EPZ/EHTP Units Permission to send out goods for job
work outside the unit Regarding.
I am directed to refer to Board’s instructions issued from F. No.
305/147/93-FTT, dated the 31st January, 1994 and Board’s Circular No.
59/98-Cus., dated the 12th August, 1998 on the sub-contracting by
EOU/EPZ/EHTP units (hereinafter referred to as the said units).
2. On further requests from the Ministry of Commerce and the
Trade, the Board has once again considered the issue of sub-contracting by
the above said units.
3. It has now been decided that henceforth the permission to
EOU/EPZ units for sub-contracting will be given by the Assistant Commis-
sioner in-charge of the Export Oriented Unit (operating under Notification
No. 53/97-Cus., dated the 3rd June, 1997 as amended by Notification No.
12/98-Cus., dated the 27th April, 1998). Further the EOU/EPZ and EHTP
units may be allowed to get a part of their production completed either
from the DTA units or from other EOU/EPZ/EHTP units, provided raw-
material for the manufacture of such goods, whether imported or indige-
nous, shall first reach and be accounted for in the statutory records of the
above said units. Subsequently, these raw materials may be sent to the job
worker for production of the final products. Final products manufactured
from such raw materials shall be brought back from job worker’s premises
to the unit for accounting. The units will ensure that the wastage generated

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  104