9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. Shri R.K. Manjhi, Authorized Representative (DR), for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : B. Ravichandran, Member (T)]. - The appeal is against order dated 11-1-2013 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. The appellants were operating as 100% EOU. They had procured capital goods from indigenous market at nil rate of excise duty in terms of Notification 22/2003-C.E. Later, they applied fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the time of debonding by the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that they have discharged the duty liability at the time of their exiting this EOU scheme and as such the present demand is not sustainable. 3. The learned AR contested the submissions of the appellant. He drew our attention to the fact that the amount of Rs. 1,02,83,238/- debited by the appellant is towards capital go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the capital goods/spares, etc., at the time of debonding. It is not in dispute that the appellants while working as EOU had procured capital goods indigenously under Notification 22/2003-C.E. without payment of duty and at the time of debonding they had not paid duty on the said capital goods. We note that the impugned order examined the claim of the appellant for nil payment of duty on indigen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants only emphasized on the principles of foreign trade policy and without any specific reference to any exemption notification under Central Excise Act which applies to their case.
6. In view of the above analysis, we find no merit in the present appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed.
(Order pronounced in open Court on 16-11-2016) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
