9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds of Central Excise Duty have been confirmed along with penalty under Rule 209. Appellant in appeal no. E/1595/04-Mumbai is Director of 100% EOU assessee-company and in E/1600/84 is the purchaser of the goods supplied by the 100% EOU under Para 9.10(b) of the EXIM Policy 1997-2002. They have been penalised under Rule 209A. 3. Commissioner relying on the decision in case of M/s. Himalaya International [2003 (154) E.L.T. 580 (Tri. - LB)] holding that duties would be liable under proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act and the argument use of different words 'sale' in Para 9.9 & 'supply' as per 9.10(b) would not change the situation, and notification 125/84 is not attracted and benefit of notification 2/95 is not eligible, arrive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xempted from duty by notification 125/84. Therefore at this prima facie stage full waiver and stay is called for. (c) The Commissioners order has not taken cognizance of the Supreme Court decision in case of Siv Industries Ltd. [2000 (117) E.L.T. 281], wherein the term 'allowed to be sold' has been interpreted by the court and as recorded even by the Union of India in the affidavit filed in that case to the effect. "18....It also becomes apparent that in view of the EOU scheme as modified from time to time and corresponding amendments to Section 3 of the Act, the expression "allowed to be sold in India" in proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act is applicable only to sales made up to 25% of production by 100% EOU in DTA and with permission.... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .L.T. A176 (S.C.)] and those appeals are under consideration. We find no reason to apply the said decision at this stage. A prima facie case of waiver and stay has been made out in all then applications. Applications to be disposed by ordering the same. 6. The stay application in appeal filed by Revenue in Appeal No. E/3489/2002 Mumbai against the order of CCE (Appeals) holding no duty required to be determined in case of the same applicant was dismissed vide C-III/1225/WZB, dated 2-9-2003. Since the issue involved is the same, it would be in the interest of both parties to get that appeal also listed along with these appeals. They should move required applications for the same. Keeping in mind the amounts involved. Early hearing is g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
