2000 (11) TMI 267 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty on a 100% EOU under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Demand of duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Confirmation of duty on capital goods under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Failure to fulfill export obligations by the appellant company.
5. Demand of duty for goods cleared into the domestic tariff area.
6. Determination of duty under the Customs Act on imported capital goods.
7. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act for failing to fulfill export obligations.

Analysis:
1. The appellant company, a 100% EOU, was penalized under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, for not fulfilling export obligations and clearing goods into the domestic tariff area. The lower authority demanded duty for these actions, which was contested by the appellants.
2. Duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was imposed on the appellant company for failing to export goods as required by their EOU status. The appellant argued that they had obtained an extension of time for export, which the lower authority allegedly disregarded.
3. The confirmation of duty on capital goods under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, was also challenged by the appellant. They claimed that the demand for duty was made without following proper instructions and procedures, as outlined in relevant circulars.
4. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both parties and found that the penalty under Rule 173Q should not have been imposed on a 100% EOU, as per Rule 173A (2). They noted that the Development Commissioner had extended the export period, which should have been considered before confirming duty demands.
5. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, citing previous decisions and instructions from the Board. The appeals were allowed for remand, directing a re-consideration of the matter in light of the Board's instructions and any export activities undertaken by the appellants during the extended period.
6. In conclusion, the appeals were allowed for remand, and the stay applications were disposed of accordingly, granting waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved in the case.