9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case are that the respondents are a 100% EOU. They are permitted to have a customs bonded private warehouse under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 for which they have been issued an in-bond manufacturing order for the manufacture of goods for export under Section 65. Consequently, the respondents bound themselves for payment of such fees by executing 3-in-1 bond and B.17 (Gen Surety) bond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the party deposited Rs. 10,150/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 4,02,536.00 was still pending realisation from them. They have therefore been called upon to show cause why the aforesaid differential amount of establishment charges for the years 1998-2000 should not be recovered from them in terms of the bond executed by them and why a penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Authority. 5. This appeal is by the Revenue against the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad. I have heard Shri R.C. Sankhla, JDR for the appellants and Shri S.D. Gaur, Consultant for the respondents. It is observed that in the written memo of appeal filed by the Revenue, the same facts are reiterated as alleged in the show cause notice. The ld. consultant for the respondents is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore call for going back to the Original Authority for passing a detailed speaking order analysing all the facts obtaining in the case and recording his findings on taking into consideration the reply made by the respondents. The impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Original Authority for passing a de novo order as per the directions contained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
