9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if they are not eligible for the benefit of these exemptions then the question of benefits under excise exemption notifications applicable to 100% EOUs which are the issues in dispute in the present appeals become infructuous. Matter remitted back to the original authority to decide the show cause notice dated 22.06.2001 demanding customs duty on the capital goods and raw materials imported by the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/535/2009, E/2032/2012, E/2033/2012, E/2034/2012, E/25008/2013, E/25009/2013 - A/30180-30185/2019 - Dated:- 28-1-2019 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri G. Shivadass, Shri G. Prahlad Ms. Swetha, Advocates for the Appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment in Appeal No.E/383/2007 and Appeal Nos.E/239-241/2007 by the assessee, the matter was remitted for denovo adjudication to the Commissioner and the denovo Order-in-Original No.12/2012 was passed which is the matter in dispute. The issue to be decided is whether the appellant is liable to pay the differential duty or otherwise. Learned counsel submits that separately, a show cause notice No.V(52)/15/04/2001-S.11 dated 22.06.2001 has been issued to them by the department seeking to deny the benefit of custom duty exemption available to 100% EOUs and recover the customs duty of ₹ 9,97,74,769/- on the ground that they have not been able to fulfil the export obligations as required under the notification. Thereafter, the Superintende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be completed within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. We record that we have not decided anything on merit of this appeal and all the points are kept open. 3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that this show cause notice pertains to demand of customs duty denying the entire benefit of exemptions available to 100% EOU on the ground that they have not fulfilled the export obligations as required. He submits that this show cause notice has still not been adjudicated and their factory is already closed. Till the closure of the factory they have fulfilled only 61% of their export obligations required as per the notification. Therefore, the eligibility of customs exemption not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had, in fact, fulfilled only 61% of the export obligations. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the customs demand may be against the appellant. 6. We also find that the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has in their order dated 05.11.2013 directed that the matter may be decided in the period of 3 months which does not appear to have been done. In this factual matrix, we find that this is a fit case to be remanded back to the original adjudicating authority with a direction to decide the show cause notice dated 22.06.2001 (for recovery of customs duty denying benefit of 100% EOU) and thereafter decide the issue in the present appeals. 7. In view of the above, without passing any remarks on the merits of the cases in hand, leavi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
