2005 (3) TMI 175

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it (EOU) engaged in the manufacture and export of yarn. A duty demand of about Rs. 66 crores has been made under the impugned order on the ground that the appellant failed to achieve Export Performance in terms of Export-Import Policy. Duty demand is in respect of all capital goods and inputs received duty free by the appellant during the period from 1995-96 to 2000-2001. Bulk of the demand (appro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y final order refusing time to the appellant for meeting the requirement. Nor has the appellant been declared as a non-EOU. 3. As against the above, the learned SDR has pointed out that the impugned order is well founded inasmuch as the Development Commissioner, Noida Export Processing Zone, had imposed a penalty of Rs.15 lakhs on the appellant under his order dated 1st January, 2002 in consider .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... chinery at the time of original input and not at the depreciated value. The duty demand on the inputs is also not well founded inasmuch as there had been no diversion of these inputs into anything other than export production. 5. In view of what is stated above, the appellant has a strong case on merits. Accordingly, the requirement for pre-deposit of duty demand is waived and its recovery staye .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X