9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decision of the Commissioner who vide the impugned order against the 100% EOU imposed penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and also demanded duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. By the same order, he confirmed the duty on the capital goods under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The appellant company is a 100% EOU set up for the manufacture of fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling to fulfil the export obligations. 4. We have heard Shri R. Raghavan, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri G. Sreekumar, learnerd SDR for the department. Shri Raghavan, Advocate submits that they have got the required extension of time vide letter dated 20-10-2000 from the Joint Development Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Export Processing Zone to facilitate export of the subject goods by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who submits that there is no objection from his side if the matter is remanded. 5. We have considered the submissions and we take up the stay applications and appeal for final disposal by this order, by granting waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved in this case. We find that penalty under Rule 173Q has been imposed in this case, while Rule 173A (2) specifically excludes the manufacturer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order and allow the appeals as remand for re-consideration of the entire matter afresh in the light of the Board's instructions and the export which the appellants might have effected in and/or extension of the export period granted to them. 6. In view of our findings above, the appeals are allowed as remand. The stay applications stand disposed of accordingly. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
