9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sposed of by a single order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Avlon Syntex Pvt. Ltd. one of the appellants as an indenting agent, indented "100% Polyester Dyed Piled Fabrics" (hereinafter referred as goods) and sold the said consignment to M/s. Marvel Fashions on High sea purchase basis. There was an agreement between both the parties as regards sale and sales on high seas basis. M/s. Marvel Fashion filed Bill of Entry for clearance of these goods claiming benefit of exemption under Notification No. 53/97-Cus. being a 100% EOU. The Revenue authorities issued a show cause notice dated 10-12-2003 after seizure of consignment, on the ground that the appellant M/s. Marvel Fashion could not have used these goods for manufacture of fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cked because M/s. Marvel Fashion has earlier cleared 12 consignments of identical goods and diverted them into DTA. 5. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the record. It is undisputed that Marvel Fashion is a 100% EOU, and had the licence to import goods without payment of duty for manufacture of goods in his 100% EOU unit. If that be so, filing of Bill of Entry by Marvel under Notification No. 53/97-Cus. cannot be faulted. As regards the contention of the Revenue that by filing Bill of Entry under Notification No. 53/97-Cus., the goods are liable to become prohibited goods because the same was sought to be cleared by violating the provisions of Customs Act and Foreign Trade (Regulations) Rules, 1993. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner and the Board of Approval. Nothing is brought on record to indicate that the department had sought to revoke the said permission granted to the appellant during investigation or subsequently. In the absence of any such evidence it has to be accepted that the Marvel Fashion is a 100% EOU they are eligible to import the goods without payment of duty. I am fortified in these views by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of G.E. India Technology Centre (P) Ltd., as reported at 2006 (198) E.L.T. 266 (T) = 2006 (74) RLT 611. I may read the relevant observation "…… At this point, we have to keep in mind the fact that the Development Commissioner and the Board of Approvals have given their approval for the import of these materia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
