9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 100% EOU scheme applied to the Assistant Collector of Customs on 17-8-1983 for clearance of defective garments comprising of two lots - one wherein imported raw materials had been used and the other wherein only indigenous raw materials had been used. The appellants got the permission for the clearance of the goods after protected correspondence with the authorities on 15-10-1984 under the cover of the Superintendent s letter wherein the following has been stated :- I am directed to inform you that after careful consideration of various aspects of the above matter permission has been granted to clear for home consumption rejected garments as per following details :- (a) 1733 Nos. of rejected garments covered by B/E No. 500/84 after pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demanded alleging suppression of facts on the part of the appellants and invoking the longer period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. 4. In the SCN, it was alleged that the appellants had cleared the garments without informing the Central Excise authorities and had paid less duty or NIL duty while the duty as indicated in the SCN was required to be paid to the Excise authorities. In that SCN, the demand in regard to clearance of waste was also indicated. 5. The ld. Consultant Shri C. Chidambaram for the appellants has pleaded that the question of suppression on the part of the appellant would not arise at all inasmuch as the appellants had approached the jurisdiction Assistant Collector who had the jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d authority and in this back ground no mala fide could be brought to them. 7. Heard the ld. JDR Shri Ravinder Saroop for the department. He reiterated the reasonings of the ld. Collector in his order. 8. We have considered the pleas made by both the sides. We observe that under 100% EOU scheme when the manufacturing in bond is done there is a provisions under the scheme itself and also notification issued in that regard for clearance of the goods to the domestic tariff area and the limits for that are prescribed in the scheme. There is nothing mentioned that the clearances as were made by the appellants were in violation of the limit as prescribed under the EOU scheme. What has been alleged in the SCN and what has been highlighted in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, there is no record to say that the appellants had acted mala fide or with an intent to evade payment of duty or the facts were kept away from the authorities. The Collectorate concerned is a composite Collectorate of Central Excise Customs and in case any other authority was supposed to be approached, it was for the authority who had been approached to have said so to the appellants. There is no allegation that the appellants had the knowledge that they were required to approach any other authority in this regard and yet they had not done so. 9. In this view of the matter, we hold that the allegation of suppression has not been brought home and we therefore on this ground, set aside the demand of duty so far as the duty relates to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
