9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber (T)]. - The appellant has an unit in KFTZ. They submitted a project report to the Development Commissioner KFTZ to establish an unit for manufacture of plastic goods and plastic articles of certain types. The appellants were given a letter of authority dated 1-11-1988 by the Development Commissioner (DC) which authorised the appellant to set up an unit in KFTZ. As the appellants could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er para 106 of ITC Policy 1992-97. The appellants effected export of goods worth Rs. 21.66 lakhs against the projected export of Rs. 30 lakhs in the first year of production. Whatever exports that were done by the appellants were approved by the DC. This then, is the background. 2. A show cause notice dated 28-7-1994 was issued to the appellants asking them to explain whey the benefit of exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would manufacture the finished goods in a particular manner. Non-observance of the method stated in the project report, according to the Commissioner, is a violation of the condition of the notification. According to him the extruder machines which were procured duty free were not used in the production of final products and therefore are liable to confiscation along with the raw material. From t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Granting without admitting that this contention is correct, it is not understood how it is a violation of condition of Notification 126/94-CE. Instead of bringing these raw materials under CT 3 to KFTZ if they are directly exported no duty will have been payable on them. It is for the Development Commissioner to cancel the letter of authority, if the appellants have not adhered to the condition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
