9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent. [Order]. I have heard Shri D.S. Negi, SDR for Revenue and Shri Naveen Gheewala, Consultant for the respondent. 2. As per facts on record, the respondent unit was visited by Central Excise Officers, who found them engaged in processing of fabrics. The statement of proprietor of the unit was recorded wherein he clarified that the premises in question were leased out to 100% EO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Commissioner (Appeals) s order. 10. I find from Para 23 of the impugned order that the adjudicating authority has accepted that the appellant was in no way concerned with the activities of M/s. Kharwar Fabrics (100% EOU) and therefore, his unit cannot be treated as 100% EOU. In this dispute, the appellant has also filed a civil suit against this unit. Merely because the debonding of the 100% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty is set aside. 5. As is clear from above, the fact that 100% EOU had vacated premises is not being doubted by Revenue and the demand is being confirmed on the sole ground that said 100% EOU which was operating from above premises has not been de-bonded. The revenue s objection is that an EOU can exit from the scheme only when the Development Commissioner passes the final de-bonding order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
