9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... precedent for hearing of the appeal by the Tribunal which would meet the ends of justice. - Decided partly in favor of assessee. - CEA No. 51 of 2012 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 28-4-2014 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Jaspal Singh,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibav Sahni, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sukhdev Sharma, Advocate ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. C.M. No. 31708-CII of 2012 C.M. is allowed and the delay of 71 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CEA No. 51 of 2012 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, the Act ) against the order dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Customs Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion. However, during the personal hearing on 26.11.2002, the Development Commissioner withdrew the order of cancellation of Letter of Permission and restored the EOU status. The approval for revocation of order of cancellation of Letter of Permission was conveyed to the assessee vide letter dated 3.12.2002. The appellant EOU was allowed in principal debonding vide letter dated 29.11.2002 on the ground to pay duty on goods, lying in stock or to export the same. Accordingly, the assessee worked out the duty liability of Rs. 12,15,599/- as per para 5(a) of notification dated 3.6.1997 which provided the clearance of capital goods on payment of the amount equal to the customs duty leviable on such goods on depreciated value and the rate in forc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndition precedent for hearing of the appeal. The assessee filed an application dated 4.5.2010 (Annexure A-6) for modification of the order dated 8.3.2010 (Annexure A-5). The Tribunal vide order dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure A-1) dismissed the application. Thereafter, the department issued notice dated 15.10.2012 (Annexure A- 7) to the assessee for recovery of arrears of customs duty. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the liability has been illegally fastened on the appellant. It was urged that the requirement of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as a pre-deposit as directed by the Tribunal was unfair and excessive under the circumstances. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue opposed the prayer made by the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
