9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (T) [Order per : Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]- This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 203/2005-CE dated 28.09.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore. 2. The appellants are a 100% EOU. They imported Capital Goods, raw materials and consumables under the scheme. As the goods were imported free of duty and also as some of the goods were procured indigenously free of duty under the Scheme, both Customs and Central Excise Duty were foregone by the Revenue. The goods were imported under the 100% EOU Scheme. Therefore, the appellants were required to discharge the export obligation. As the appellants could not fulfill the export obligation under the scheme, they had violated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1996-1997, goods worth ₹ 119 lakhs were exported. Therefore, the learned Advocate said that proportionate abatement from duty liability should be given and he said that the lower authorities have not considered this plea. He relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal:- (i) Super Tex Labels vs. CC, Bangalore - 2005 (191) ELT 766 (Tri-Bang.) (ii) Sidhartha Metal Coating Ltd. Vs. CC, Bangalore - 2005 (192) ELT 192 (Tri.-Bang.) 4.1. The learned advocate submitted that due to change in technology, there was sudden slump in the demand of the product manufactured by the appellant and, therefore, they lost their export market. Hence, they were not in a position to fulfill the export obligation. He sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced the appellants to shut down their manufacturing operations. Many of the revival plans implemented by the appellant to revive the fortunes of the appellant unit did not result in any success. Therefore, the appellant company was referred to BIFR for revival on 26.11.1998. Hence, the failure to fulfill the export obligation was not intentional and deliberate, but was due to certain factors, which were beyond their control. The learned Advocate relied on the following decisions, which hold that in such circumstances, no penalty can be imposed and interest demanded. (i) Taurus Novelties Ltd. vs. CC, Bangalore - 2004 (173) ELT 100 (Tri.-Bang.) (ii) Meirs Pharma ( India ) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, Chennai - 2004 (167) ELT 53 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
