9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification 13/81 (allowing exemption from duty on capital goods, raw materials etc., imported for setting up 100% EOU on condition of export of the goods produced) and Excise Notification 123/81 (granting parallel exemption regarding excise duty on capital goods etc., purchased in the domestic market). Respondent imported capital goods etc., of the value of Rs. 17.53 lacs and purchased indigenious goods valued at Rs. 9.75 lacs for the purpose of setting up the unit. Production started in 1984 but manufacture and export stopped some time after September, 1987. This is seen from the respondent s letter dated 10-5-1988 addressed to the department. The factory was in bonded area. The Ministry of Commerce, Government of India allowed debondin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finished goods under Inventory No. 3 to the panchnama to be cleared after payment of appropriate Central Excise duty. This order is now challenged by the department. 5. There is no dispute at the Bar that after passing of the adjudication order, PIL had withdrawn the offer to take over the unit and to discharge the liabilities. The impugned order is defective inasmuch as the adjudicating authority did not pass any order in the matter of the confiscation proposed in the show cause notice, nor did the adjudicating authority confirming the demand against the respondent or anyone of the parties concerned. So far as the department is concerned the liability is that of the respondent. It appears to us that the adjudicating authority should ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst RIICO Ltd. If there was any infirmity in the act of seizure by the department, either the respondent or RIICO Ltd. should have raised an objection. No such objection has been raised by either of them. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the appeal on account of non-rejoinder of the RIICO Ltd. This is particularly so since the RIICO Ltd. has washed its hands in the matter. 9. It is no doubt true, as pointed out by the respondent, that the goods have not yet been debonded that cannot stand in way of confiscation of goods and further steps for recovery of the dues. In these circumstances, we are inclined to grant prayer of the appellant for remand of the proceedings. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the juris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
