9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uced herein below: "7. I have carefully gone through the case records, submission of the appellants in writing as well as during personal hearing, rival contentions and he impugned order. The issue to be decided is whether duty can be demanded when the imported and the indigenous goods are still in the warehouse in a 100% EOU under the respective notifications and whether interest and penalty can be imposed for violation of conditions of the said notifications. As per Notification No. 53/97-Cus.and 1/95-C.E. an EOU is permitted to procure imported and indigenous goods for their EOU with out payment of duty under CT-3 certificate from the Range Superintendent for manufacture of export goods amount equivalent to the duty. If the notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment is provisional and the goods are in the warehouse as the Additional Commissioner has cited the case law in the matter of Mediwell Hospital and Healthcare Pvt. v. UOI - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 425 (S.C.). The appellants' contention is that unless there is a express permission from the DC, VEPZ, the C.E. Department cannot take cognizance and cannot demand duty when the goods are in the warehouse and they have also contended that the demands made under the Notifications are prospective and the penalty under Section 72 of Customs Act, 1962 is not applicable, I do not agree with their contentions. As can be seen from the records, after its establishment in 95, 7 years have passed and the appellant has not fulfilled the NEPP and EP as ruled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod for the party's non-performance and default. Hence I find that the demand of duty against the goods procured duty free under CT-3 is in order. So also the demand of interest is also justified from the date of finalization of the assessment through the Order-in-original. As the party has defaulted deliberately, penalty imposed under statute and the bond conditions is justified. Hence, I do not want to interfere with the Order-in-Original." 3. The learned Counsel submitted that the appellant's, company has been registered under BIFR and they were unable to fulfil the export obligations as the goods which they wanted to manufacture could not be marketed. He submits that although the time provided by the Deputy Commissioner VEPZ had expi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
