ORDER
C. Satapathy, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides. The issue involved in this appeal is interpretation of Clause (b) of the 3rd proviso to Notification No. 2/95-C.E., dated 4-1-1995. The said clause puts a restriction requiring satisfaction of Customs officials that total value of impugned goods cleared under Paras 9.9 and 9.20 of Exim Policy 1997-2002, does not exceed 50% of the free on board value of export made during the year. It is the case of the appellants that not only goods exported out of the country should be taken into account under this clause but also deemed exports allowed by the Development Commissioner.
2. The learned Advocate has cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shabnam Synthetics Ltd. v. C.C.E. & C., Surat – 2003 (152) E.L.T. 123 (Tri.-Mumbai). We find that Shabnam follows the decision of Ginni International Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur – 2002 (139) E.L.T. 172. However, the impugned order clearly notes that the decision in the case of Ginny cited supra was rendered in the context of Notification No. 8/97 and the same is not pari materia to Notification No. 2/95. He has also given a finding that DTA sales made by the appellants has exceeded 50% of FOB value of exports. Since the notification refers to the free on board value of export and export means “taking out of India to a place outside India”, we are of the view that the Adjudicating authority was correct in restricting the computation of the value of clearance to physical exports and not extending the expression to include deemed export as the notification does not refer to deemed exports. Besides, the Development Commissioner may permit DTA clearances in excess of what is allowed under the exemption notification and that may be sufficient for the purpose of Exim policy, which the Development Commissioner is required to administer being a Commerce Ministry official. The Allocation of Business Rules of the Government of India requires the Ministry of Finance and its officials to deal with duty exemption and it is correct for the Adjudicating authority to strictly follow the terms of the exemption notification issued by the Finance Ministry while determining entitlement to duty exemption. It is significant that the notification links the exemption to value of exports and not to the value of the clearances allowed by the Development Commissioner. The notification also speaks of the satisfaction of customs authorities not that of the Development Commissioner.
3. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the Adjudicating authority has passed a proper, legal and correct order and that the appellants have not made out a case requiring any interference with the impugned order.
4. As such, the appeal is dismissed.