E.M.A. India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- central excise act, 1944.[c.a. no. 1/1944]. section 3(1), proviso (ii) (as it stood prior to 11.05.2001) & 5-a(1): [s.h. kapadia & b. sudershan reddy, jj] notification no. 2/95-ce dd04.01.1995: exemption as to imports and exports 100% eou entitlement to and extent of admissible benefit texturised polyester yarn and dyed polyester yarn manufactured and sold by such a unit against foreign exchange in domestic tariff area (dta) with permission of competent authority under para 9.10(b) of export & import policy, 1997-2002, held, it is covered by the expression allowed to be sold in india occurring in proviso (ii) to section 3(1) (as it then stood). hence, attracted the benefit of notification no. 2/95-ce as did dta sales against rupee further held, cegat erred in inferring from para 9.9 (b), exim policy that the benefit of exemption under the said notification would be admissible only in respect of 50% of such dta sales against foreign exchange. order1. the question is whether the value of the capital investment of plant and machinery installed in the appellants' industrial unit exceeded rupees ten lacs. reliance was placed by the revenue upon a letter dated 23rd january, 1978, written by the appellants to the suppliers of the machine by reason of which the said value exceeded rupees ten lacs. the letter states, 'the machine has been commissioned by them (the suppliers' engineers) and working alright at present except a jerky movement of the slides.' the letter is sought to be explained away by the appellants by saying that the word 'commissioned' had been loosely used. we do not think that any interference in this matter is called for, having regard to the clear language of the letter aforementioned.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. The question is whether the value of the capital investment of plant and machinery installed in the appellants' industrial unit exceeded Rupees ten lacs. Reliance was placed by the Revenue upon a letter dated 23rd January, 1978, written by the appellants to the suppliers of the machine by reason of which the said value exceeded Rupees ten lacs. The letter states, 'The machine has been commissioned by them (the suppliers' engineers) and working alright at present except a jerky movement of the slides.' The letter is sought to be explained away by the appellants by saying that the word 'commissioned' had been loosely used. We do not think that any interference in this matter is called for, having regard to the clear language of the letter aforementioned.