9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts from the date of issue of LOP in 1995 and concluded that the appellants failed to fulfill the terms of the LOP and there is a violation of the FTDR read with FTP 2009-2014. As such, the violation of EXIM Policy and non-fulfilment of export conditions is clearly an admitted fact. Appellant was specifically asked as to the process of fresh adjudication based on all facts now in the knowledge of the appellant than can be completed by the Original Authority - Matter remanded for fresh consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Customs Appeal No.50949/2014(DB) - C/A/57118/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 29-9-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) S/Shri Somesh Arora And Shri A. Jaju, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the appellant, with the permission to redeem on payment of ₹ 1,50,00,000/- and ₹ 25 lakh. He also imposed a penalty of ₹ 1 crore on the appellant under Customs Act, 1962 and a further penalty of ₹ 5 lakh under Central Excise Rules, 1944/2002. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant raised a preliminary objection against the impugned proceedings on the ground that they had a valid LOP upot 31.03.2013 issued by the Competent Authority. The Customs Authorities could not have proceeded to demand and recover the duty foregone before such date. The statues of the appellant as EOU is determined by the Development Commissioner, who is implementing the EXIM Policy during the relevant time. The ld. Counsel also submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w.e.f. 1.4.2013. The original order cannot be faulted legally when all the facts are considered. The show cause notice issued in 2008 is based on cancellation of bond by the Customs Authorities and even at that time, it is more than 13 years after the approval to the appellant. No export happened in these periods. As such, the appellants have no case to contest on technicality of the pre-mature show cause notice. The interest of the Revenue cannot be compromised on such technicality. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 7. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellants were permitted to operate an EOU in 1995 subject to various conditions. The prime condition is that they have to manufacture and expo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
