9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nforce the bond and bank guarantee. The SCN did not contain any allegation with respect to the eligibility or ineligibility of the appellant for the benefit of the aforesaid notifications or its liability to pay duty. Despite that in the impugned orders, the appellant's duty liability has also been determined by the authorities - in the adjudication, the authorities have gone beyond the scope of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant's unit was a 100% Export Oriented Unit. For the purpose of transportation of the frozen sea food, the appellant had imported 5 refrigerated trucks, availing the benefit of Notification No.13/1981 Cus. Dated 09.02.1981. 3. Subsequently, the appellant had debonded its unit from 100% EOU to EPCG scheme. As part of the process of debonding, the appellant furnished Annexure A3 bond under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding of Annexures A8, A9 and A10 orders show that the respective authorities have not only examined the contentions of the appellant with respect to its failure to renew the bond and bank guarantee, but also examined the duty liability of the appellant and its ineligibility for the benefit of notification Nos. 13/1981 and 24/1997. According to us, as held by the Apex Court in its judgment in Recki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore the orders cannot be sustained. In such circumstances, we set aside the orders impugned in this appeal and dispose of the appeal with the following directions: 1.The appellant shall furnish a fresh bond and bank guarantee with terms similar to those contained in Annexure A3 and the bank guarantee furnished for a period of one year. The bond and bank guarantee shall be furnished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
