9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well as unit in the Domestic Tariff Area (D.T.A.) manufacturing PET bottles/jars/performs; that after the visit of the Central Excise Officers of their factory on 20-9-1998 a show cause notice dated 17-3-1999 was issued to them with a proposal to recover various amounts of Customs duty on capital goods and a proposal to confiscate the imported goods and imposition of penalty under Section 114A and Section 112 of the Customs Act besides proposing recovery of Central Excise duty, confiscation of indigenous goods and imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the ground that the Applicant company was manufacturing goods in 100% E.O.U. and clearing the same in the D.T.A. by showing in the record th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 407 PET bottles, in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Himalya International Ltd. v. CCE [2003 (154) E.L.T. 580 (Tri. - LB) = 2003 (56) RLT 842] and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Himalya International Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh [2003 (156) E.L.T. 773 (T) = 2003 (58) RLT 613], will work out to Rs. 1,78,393/- only as the goods cleared from 100% EOU into the DTA are to be assessed on the basis of effective rate of duty prescribed under Notification and not at Tariff rate whether permission of the Development Commissioner had been taken or not for clearing the goods into the D.T.A. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of Euro Cotspin Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2001 (127) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re-computed after determining the correct assessable value. The Appellants had rebutted the allegation of clandestine manufacture of goods in the E.O.U. The evidence produced by them has also not been fully weighed before passing the impugned Order. In these circumstances, the entire case is required to be re-adjudicated after giving the appellants an opportunity to present their case." The Tribunal had, therefore, remanded the matter for afresh Adjudication to the jurisdictional Commissioner. 4. It is settled law that in remand proceedings the Adjudicating Authority has to decide the matter within four walls of remand Order. The Adjudicating Authority cannot travel beyond the scope of remand order. It has not been rebutted by the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
