9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member (J)]. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant is a 100% EOU, manufacturing hand tools in bonded warehouse. They were granted letter of permission on 21st October, 1986. The unit was debonded in principle by the Development Commissioner vide his letter dated 7-7-2000. Superintendent of Central Excise by letter dated 6-1-2001 directed them to deposit the customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Customs, 1962. 2. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, we find that the learned Advocate is not seriously challenging the demand of differential duty on capital goods and unused raw material. It is seen from letter dated 6-9-2001, in response to the application for de-bonding and subsequent assessment of central excise duty, the Superintendent of Central Excise provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... final assessment of goods and rejection of remission of duty. Therefore, confiscation of goods and redemption fine are not sustainable and penalty also is liable to be set aside. 3. In view of the above discussion, the demand of duty is upheld. Confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty are set aside. The claim of the learned Advocate is that the payment of interest is not sustainable in vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
