2009 (8) TMI 472

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., for the Appellant. Shri Sameer Chitkara, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - The appellant is a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of Dyed/Printed Fabrics (manmade fabrics) and Polyester Knitted Fabrics falling under Chapter No. 54 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, out of the grey fabrics obtained indigenously or imported free of duty. The appellant was h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f law and they are liable to pay duties in respect of the said activities. 3. During the course of adjudication, the appellant brought to the notice of the adjudicating authority that the order of the Development Commissioner dated 18-2-2003, cancelling their LOP was appealed against them before the Appellate Committee, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi who has vide their order dated....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as such they cannot be treated as 100% EOU for the period under consideration. He accordingly, confirms the demand and imposes the penalty. 5. After hearing both the sides we find that the period involved in the present appeal is from 18-2-2003 to June 2003 and the basis of the proceedings against the appellant is the LOP cancellation order of Development Commissioner passed on 18-2-2003. Admit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ur of the assessee, it has to be held that as if there was never a period when LOP stood cancelled. The order of the adjudicating authority is merged in the order of the appellate authority and in the subsequent order of the Original Adjudicating Authority passed in de novo proceedings. The above views do not require the support of any precedent decisions. 6. If the reasoning of the Commissione....