https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31882 Duty demand, confiscation and penalties against a 100% EOU for alleged non-fulfilment of export obligation and NFEP could not be sustained without a definite finding from the competent authority, namely the Board of Approval or Development Commissioner, that the exemption conditions had been breached. The tribunal noted that no such conclusive finding existed before the show-cause notice or adjudication, and the issue had also been kept in abeyance in rehabilitation proceedings. The adjudication was therefore premature and unsustainable, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication after the requisite competent-authority finding. en-us Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31882 Duty demand, confiscation and penalties against a 100% EOU for alleged non-fulfilment of export obligation and NFEP could not be sustained without a definite finding from the competent authority, namely the Board of Approval or Development Commissioner, that the exemption conditions had been breached. The tribunal noted that no such conclusive finding existed before the show-cause notice or adjudication, and the issue had also been kept in abeyance in rehabilitation proceedings. The adjudication was therefore premature and unsustainable, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication after the requisite competent-authority finding. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31882