9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filled by the party, which were fulfilled by them in due course of time. Upon fulfilment of the conditions laid down by the Development Commissioner, the unit was finally debonded as per the Development Commissioner s order dated 29-3-2003. During the period 3-12-2003 to 29-3-2003, the appellants had received duty-paid inputs and taken credit thereon and had also utilized such credit for payment of duty on their DTA clearances. In a show-cause notice dated 20-6-2003, the Superintendent of Central Excise called upon the appellants to show cause to the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise as to why (1) Cenvat credit of Rs. 57,66,223/- availed on inputs between 3-12-2002 and 29-3-2003 and utilized for payment of duty on DTA clearances during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants, the Commissioner of Customs has no jurisdiction over their unit after the effective date of debonding. It is submitted that the Commissioner of Customs could not have demanded Central Excise duty from the appellants in adjudication of SCN which was issued after they became a normal DTA unit, and, for that matter, he could not have imposed any penalty either. As to the effective date of debonding, it is the appellants case that their unit should be treated as having been debonded on 3-12-2002, the date on which in-principle-debonding was allowed by the Development Commissioner. It is submitted that, after that, the appellants were allowed to procure inputs on payment of duty both indigenously and through imports as also to clear thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of Customs could not have claimed jurisdiction over a unit which was already debonded. 5. In support of her contention that the appellants unit should be deemed to have been debonded only on 31-3-03, learned SDR relies on the decision of this Bench in Commissioner of Customs, Guntur v. Regency Ceramics Ltd., 2000 (121) E.L.T. 384 (Tri.). 6. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we are of the view that the jurisdictional issue requires to be sorted out at the outset. Accordingly, after considering the relevant submissions, we have found ourselves unable to subscribe to the view expressed by learned SDR. On the facts of this case, neither side has a case that the appellants unit has worked as a 100% EOU after 31-3- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
