9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 1135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 58 read with Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhiwadi as a 100% EOU subject to the fulfilment of terms and conditions as prescribed in the licence and on following the procedural formalities in accordance with the instructions issued by the departmental authorities from time to time. However, during the period from 19-11-99 to 15-5-2000 they continued to clear the excisable goods manufactured by them on payment of central excise duty as hitherto being done. Accordingly, they were issued a show cause notice dated 1-6-2000 by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division, Alwar alleging that as per Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, they were liable to pay the central excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OU and that Development Commissioner granted them a letter of permission (LPO) vide his communication dated 26-7-99. They also executed the legal agreement prescribed for an export oriented units (LUT) on 9-8-99 with the Development Commissioner, NOIDA and consequently they obtained the customs licence dated 19-11-99 under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 from the Deputy Commissioner Central Excise, Bhiwadi. They further stated that the essential formalities like execution of B-17 bond, payment of cost recovery charges etc. were to be completed and the same were complied with by 16-5-2000. They submitted due intimation to the Development Commissioner regarding their operating as an EOU with effect from 16-5-2000, and also furnished detai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be recovered from the party under Section 11AA. 3. We have heard Shri L.P. Asthana, Advocate for the appellants and Shri B.C. Maher, SDR for the respondents. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us. The issue before us is whether the unit of the appellants at Neemrana should be deemed to be a 100% EOU from 19-11-99 and consequently whether for the period from 19-11-99 to 15-5-2000 they are liable to pay differential duty of Rs. 85,26,894/- as per Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The facts as narrated above are not in dispute. The appellants were manufacturing cotton yarn as a DTA unit and were paying duty on such yarn cleared for home consumption on the rates as applicable. On 22-6-99 they applied t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same. They requested the Development Commissioner to issue them a letter confirming their EOU status from 16-5-2000. In pursuance of this request of the party, the Assistant Development Commissioner, NEPZ informed them as follows vide letter dated 26-5-2000 :- "I am directed to refer to your letter dated 25-5-2000 on the subject cited above and to inform you that the unit has been converted into EOU with effect from 16-5-2000 i.e. date of opening stock verification by jurisdictional Excise authority. The stock in existence prior to 16-5-2000 may be treated as DTA products." 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise got the stock held by the appellant on 16-5-2000 verified and vide his letter dated 5-6-2000 granted them the perm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
