9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -6-1981 and without following the prescribed procedure as applicable to such units. 2. The appellants are a 100% E.O.U. engaged in the manufacture of fine jute yarn/twine with effect from 1-7-1982. But due to fire accident on 23-12-1986 in the Unit, the appellant had to convert the same to Domestic Tariff Area Unit (DTAU) with the sanction of the Hon ble High Court at Calcutta. As the Unit failed to comply with the customs formalities in respect of debonding of the plant and machinery, the Hon ble High Court vacated their earlier order and with effect from 3-4-1992 the Unit was treated as 100% E.O.U. As per Notification No. 123/81, a 100% E.O.U. is authorised to consume certain specified excisable goods including pack sheets free of Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EOU as per the Hon ble High Court order dated 3-4-1992. The appellant accordingly, submitted the said claim on 1-10-1992 for refund of the central excise duty paid on the pack sheets which the appellant was forced to do in view of the Superintedent s action in cancellation of the CT-3 dated 2-6-1992. The said refund claim was rejected by the Asstt. Collr. The appellant s appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) also met with the same fate. Hence, this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Shri P.R. Biswas, learned Consultant appearing for the appellants, submits that it was the Superintendent of C. Ex. who prevented the appellant in obtaining non-duty paid pack sheets under CT-3 during the relevant period and, therefore, the appellant was compelled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant has filed the refund claim, the Department rejected the same on the ground that the appellant failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the said Notification. We are of the view that the appellant cannot be made to suffer for the procedural irregularities specifically when the same were at the instance of the Department. We observe that the duty paid pack sheets were in fact used in the manufacture of the goods exported from the said 100% EOU and the relevant export documents (AR4) give ample testimony to the said fact. Hence, we do not subscribe to the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. We, therefore, set aside the order impugned and direct the Assistant Commissioner to sanction the refund of Rs. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
