9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cturer and that the export obligations stipulated in the EPCG licences have already been fulfilled by the Appellant. It is evident from the various submissions of the Ld.Advocate that the evidences produced before this Tribunal were not available during the adjudication proceedings. - Matter remitted back with order of pre deposit - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal Nos.Cus.Ap.71408 & 71414/13 - ORDER NO.FO/A/75145-75146/2014 - Dated:- 8-4-2014 - Dr. D.M. Misra and Dr. I.P. Lal, JJ. For the Appellant : S/Shri Ravi Raghavan, Advocate, Abhisek Anand, Advocate Shri Harsh Shukla, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri S.C. Jana, Special Counsel JUDGEMENT Per Dr. I.P. Lal 1. These Applications are filed by M/s.Tata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Applicants and adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata, which culminated into the above order. Being aggrieved, these appeals along with Stay Applications have been filed to this forum. 3. The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Applicants has submitted that the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner has issued the necessary installation certificate dated 11.04.2012 to the effect that all the imported dies and fixtures were installed in the premises of M/s.Caparo Engineering India Ltd. i.e. the supporting manufacturer except few dies and fixures where the part numbers did not tally with the part number mentioned in the relevant invoices and packing list. It is submitted that subsequent to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in 2008 (228) E.L.T. 379 (Tri.-Bang.); v) The judgement of the Hon ble High Court for Andhra Pradesh in case of Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Hyderabad vs. Creative Industries (Rajamundry) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2012 (282) E.L.T. 349 (A.P.) and vi) the order of the Tribunal in case of Pierre Colsun Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore - 2004 (177) E.L.T. 898 (Tri.-Bang.). 4. Ld. Advocate however fairly agreed that these evidences were not before the adjudicating authority and therefore requested to remit the case back to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision. He gave an offer to make a pre-deposit of Rs.50.00 Lakhs pending the fresh adjudication in de novo proceedings, if any. 5. The Ld.A.R. for Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
