2002 (1) TMI 727

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onsultant, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are a 100% EOU. They are permitted to have a customs bonded private warehouse under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 for which they have been issued an in-bond manufacturing order for the manufacture of goods for export under Section 65. Consequently, the respondents bound themselves for p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....686.00 2. It is stated that the party deposited Rs. 10,150/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 4,02,536.00 was still pending realisation from them. They have therefore been called upon to show cause why the aforesaid differential amount of establishment charges for the years 1998-2000 should not be recovered from them in terms of the bond executed by them and why a penalty should not be impo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g aside the order passed by the Original Authority. 5. This appeal is by the Revenue against the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad. I have heard Shri R.C. Sankhla, JDR for the appellants and Shri S.D. Gaur, Consultant for the respondents. It is observed that in the written memo of appeal filed by the Revenue, the same facts are reiterated as alleged in the show cause noti....