9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmission and personal hearings recorded in the OIO by the adjudicating authority indicated that all the records available in the present appeals were not produced before the lower authorities. This matter is, therefore, required to be remanded to the adjudicating authority. It is directed that appellant should produce all the records available with him to the adjudicating authority who shall quantify the duty liability of the appellant based on the records available, before enforcing the B-17 bonds and encashing Bank Guarantee, by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and following the principles of natural justice - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.C/13860/2013-DB - Order No. A/10877/2014 - Dated:- 23-4-201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere to be carried forward at their original value and not at depreciated value. The appellant was also granted warehousing licence No.V/100% EOU/3/PBWH/JBSL/05-06, dt.01.03.2006 by Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Customs, Division Vapi-I. Appellant executed B-17 bond dt.06.04.2006 for Rs.2.35 Crores and also submitted Bank Guarantee No.NP/625/06/06, dt.20.03.2006 for Rs.11,75,000/- valid upto 19.03.2013. As per licence dt.01.03.2006, all the Central Excise and Customs liabilities of M/s Ashai Fibres Ltd were to be taken over by the appellant. The licence also envisaged the following condition at Para 13:- The licence is granted subject to verification of details of capital goods like Bill of Entry, invoice etc to asce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vered has not been quantified by the Revenue and hence invocation of Bank Guarantee and enforcing of B-17 bond is not justified. He also produced a copy of Settlement Certificate, dt.31.03.2005 according to which M/s Ashai Fibres Ltd has got a one time settlement sum of Rs.345 lakhs as against total claim of Rs.31.53 Crores. 4. Shri Manoj Kutty, (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue defended the stand taken by the lower authorities. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. It is observed from the show cause notice dt.22.01.2013 and OIO dt.31.04.2013 passed by the adjudicating authority, that no duty demand has been quantified by the lower authorities. As the issue lies in a narrow compass, therefore, after allowing the stay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
