Case Details: Elentec India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida (2025) 36 Centax 425 (Tri.-All)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- P.K. Choudhary, Member (J) & Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (T)
- Shri Jayant Kumar, Adv. for the Appellant.
- Shri A.K. Choudhary, Authorised Representative for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant, a 100% EOU, removed capital goods from its unit to a DTA unit without payment of customs duty or Central Excise duty, stating that the movement was for job work. The appellant relied upon ‘Notification No. 52/2003-Cus, dated 31-03-2003’ and ‘Notification No. 22/2003-CE, dated 31-03-2003’ to claim duty-free benefit. The department alleged that the appellant had not followed the prescribed statutory procedures for such removal and had also failed to satisfy the mandatory conditions attached to the above notifications. It was further alleged that the burden to establish eligibility for exemption lay on the assessee and that such burden had not been discharged in respect of the capital goods in question. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that the appellant, having removed capital goods to the DTA unit without complying with the procedures prescribed in ‘Notification No. 52/2003-Cus, dated 31-03-2003’ and ‘Notification No. 22/2003-CE, dated 31-03-2003’, was not entitled to the exemption benefits. The CESTAT held that exemption notifications require strict compliance and that the assessee must establish fulfilment of all conditions, which was not done in the present case. The CESTAT further held that such unauthorised removal warranted confiscation under Section 111(j) of the Customs Act, 1962 and justified penalties under Sections 112, 114A, and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Exercising discretion under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, the CESTAT reduced the redemption fine while upholding confiscation and penalties.
List of Cases Cited
- Champs On Web Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2013 (290) E.L.T. 749 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Para 4.10]
- Commissioner v. Dilip Kumar and Company — 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 4.7]
- Commissioner v. Mavi Industrial Ltd. — 2016 (331) E.L.T.A128 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 4.9]
- Mavi Industrial Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2013 (289) E.L.T. 15 (Bom.) — Relied on [Para 4.9]
- Mavi Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2013 (289) E.L.T. 72 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Para 4.9]
- Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills — 2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 4.13]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 27/2003-C.E., dated 31-3-2003 [Paras 4.3, 4.6]
- Notification No. 52/2003-Cus., dated 31-3-2003 [Paras 4.3, 4.4, 4.6]
- Notification No. 53/2003-C.E., dated 17-6-2003 [Para 3.2]
