JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 17/18.04.2018 passed by the revisional authority reversing the appellate and adjudicating orders which were in favour of the petitioner.

2. Brief facts are noted from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11298/2018. The petitioner had established a manufacturing unit which existed initially as a 100% Export Oriented Unit (‘EOU’ for short). Sometime later on, the petitioner converted itself from EOU to a non-EOU unit. At the time of such conversion, the petitioner had paid the excise duty on the goods which were waived in the capacity of EOU. The petitioner thereafter exported the finished products from the domestic tariff area (‘DTA’ for short). Against these exports, the petitioner sought refund of the excise duty previously paid. The adjudicating authority as well as appellate authority accepted the request. The matter was carried in revision by the Government. The revisional authority reversed said orders by the impugned order. The main focus of the revisional authority was that the EOU unit and the DTA unit were not the same entity, for which purpose, the authority referred to the central excise registration numbers. Primarily on this ground, the benefit was denied.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record, we find that the revisional authority has committed an error. The appellate authority had in its order discussed the issue of availability of refund of excise duty paid by the petitioner in the following manner:

“6.1 In this regard, I observe that duty on the exported goods was paid at the time of the de-bonding of 100% EOU into a unit of domestic tariff area and as such at that time the unit was required to pay duty in terms of proviso to Section 3(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 before applying for exit from the bonded status. Since the unit looses all the benefit available to 100% EOU after exit, the respondent therefore was legally required to pay duty on the finished goods as well as duty foregone on inputs and capital goods before de-bonding. It is also a fact that goods were not exported by the respondent in the status of EOU but were exported as DTA unit. As such it is not correct to say that benefit of exemption under Notification No. 24/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 was available to them. The other issue raised that goods should be exported after payment of duty as per condition No. (a) of Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. I find that department has recovered the duty payable on the finished goods lying at the time of de-bonding as per the provision of FTP to bring the unit at parity to DTA units as clarified by the Board under para 4 of the Circular No. 1/2004-Cus dated 05.01.2004. As such there is no confusion that goods exported were duty paid though the same was paid at the time of de-bonding to withdraw all the benefit of exemption provided to EOU. Thus, there was no scope to pay duty again on such finished goods transferred from EOU on payment of duty as the unit remains same and only status changed.

6.2 The department has also stated that the adjudicating authority has not determined the place of removal and that charges up to port has not been deducted from FOB value. Further, as per Para 3(iii) of the grounds of appeal, duty should have been paid on transaction value only. The respondent has submitted that in case of export, the place of removal is port of export where export documents are presented for clearances. This is clear from OIO No. 226-263/2011-R dated 24.11.2011 passed by the same adjudicating authority which appears to have been accepted by the department. In this OIO, it was held that the place of removal in the case of export of goods is the place from where the goods leaves the territory of India this is the place from where the document called Export General Manifest, has been prepared and dispatched to the concern place of export that may be port, airport, inland container depot, cus