9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The respondents in this appeal of the Revenue are a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of monuments [Heading 68.07 of the CETA Schedule]. The officers of Central Excise (Preventive) visited the unit on 18-2-1998 and conducted scrutiny of records and verification of physical stock of goods. They found that an excavator which had been received in the factory in October, 1990 and re-warehoused in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter. From the results of these inquiries, it appeared to the department that the respondents had removed bonded goods without payment of duty or following statutory procedure. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued to the party for recovery of Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,30,750/-, Customs duty of Rs. 2,47,936/- and Additional Customs Duty of Rs. 79,449/0 (sic) under the relevant provisions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the order of adjudication without clearance from the Board of Approval or the Development Commissioner was not sustainable. This view taken by the lower appellate authority has been contested by the appellant on the ground that the instructions contained in Circular No. 122/95-Cus. are squarely applicable to a case of illicit removal and improper accountal and, therefore, prior intimation or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . and No. 122/95-Cus. ibid, that a show cause notice could be issued to a 100% EOU for demanding duty on goods allegedly removed in violation of the law relating to such EOUs, only after intimation of such violation to the Development Commissioner in charge of the EOU. This view taken by a Division Bench of this Tribunal is binding on me sitting single. On my part, I have also independently examin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
