9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demanding interest on such duty; (iii) holding the goods in question (capital goods, spares and raw materials totally valued at over Rs.126 Crores) to be liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act; (iv) determining redemption fine of Rs. 20 Crores to be paid by the Export-Oriented Unit under Section 125 of the Act in lieu of such confiscation; (v) imposing a penalty of Rs. 6 Crores on the Export Oriented Unit under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act and (vi) imposing penalties of Rs. 5 Crores each on Shri O.P. Agarwal (second appellant) and Shri K.K. Agarwal (third appellant) under Section 112(a) ibid. The learned Commissioner passed the order in a second round. During the course of adjudication of the case, an applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Commissioner, SEEPZ SEZ approves of your request for extension of letter of permission dt. 09.09.1998 for a period of 5 years effective from 01.04.2009 and also approve the fresh projections for the 2nd block of 5 years i.e. from 2009-10 to 2013-14 with export performance of US$ 5,06,07,290/- (US$ Five Crore Six Lakh Seven Thousand Two Hundred Ninety only), RM & Components of US$ 3,54,25,100/- (US$ Three Crore Fifty Four Lakh Twenty Five Thousand One Hundred Only), Spares & Consumables of US$ 20,24,290/- (US $ Twenty Lakh Twenty Four Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Only) and Net Foreign Exchange Earnings of US$ 1,29,55,470/- (US$ One Crore Twenty Nine Lakh Fifty Five Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Only). 3. This approval is subject to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at it is not the case of the Revenue that the capital goods were not installed in the factory and not used in the manufacture of the export products. Again it is not the case of the Revenue that the raw materials imported and indigenously procured by the appellant were not used in the manufacture of the export products. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the allegation of the department that the EOU violated condition No. 6(i) and (ii) of Notification No. 53/97-Cus. is not sustainable. Condition No. 6 (iv) of the notification required the EOU to achieve the prescribed NFEP and EP within a period of one year from the date of procurement of raw materials or within such extended period as might be allowed by the Jurisdictional Assist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel, which we have already summarized hereinbefore, also shall be considered by the learned Commissioner. Considering the fact that the dispute had already been carried through several rounds of litigation before this Tribunal and the Hon ble High Court, the adjudicating authority shall pass final order without unreasonable delay. 3. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow these appeals by way of remand to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication of the dispute in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. Needless to say that the Development Commissioner s order dated 27.4.2009 has to be considered and also that the assessee s contentions with reference to condition No.6 of Notification No. 53/97-C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
