2025-VIL-1691-CESTAT-HYD-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - 100% EOU - Imported of capital goods and raw materials locally, availing exemption Notification No.52/2003-Cus and Notification No.22/2003-CE both dated 31.3.2003 on the condition of exporting goods or services – Denial of benefit of the Notifications on the ground that they had not exported the Technical Testing and Analysis (TTA) service, which was considered an export service under the Export of Service Rules, 2006 - Whether the concept of 'export of service' under the Export of Service Rules, 2006 can be applied to determine the eligibility for exemption notifications issued under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Central Excise Act, 1944, or the term 'export' should be construed in accordance with the definition provided in the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - HELD - The term 'export' used in the exemption notifications issued under the Customs Act and Central Excise Act should be construed in accordance with the definition provided in the FTDR Act, and not based on the Export of Service Rules under the Finance Act. The EOU Scheme is governed by the Foreign Trade Policy, and the FTDR Act provides a specific definition of 'export' in relation to services, which includes supplying services from India into the territory of any other country or in India to the service consumer of any other country. Since the appellants had received payments in convertible foreign exchange for the services provided to recipients located outside India, they were eligible for the benefit of the exemption notifications, irrespective of the requirements under the Export of Service Rules - The impugned orders are set aside and the appeal is allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page