2001 (9) TMI 1020

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cation of the imported capital goods, raw materials, valued at Rs. 284.94 lakhs under Section 111(d) and (o) of the Customs Act and that the indigenous capital goods, raw materials valued at Rs. 19.50 lakhs under Rule 173Q(1)(d) of the Central Excise Rules, as detailed in the order itself. 2. In the present stay application, the appellants have sought total waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts as detailed in the impugned order of the Commissioner referred to above, for the purpose of hearing of their appeal on merits. 3. The admitted facts are these : The appellants were 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of canned mushrooms. They were registered as such in terms of Letter of Permission (in short LOP) dated ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y had exported the canned mushrooms during the years 1993-94 to 1996-97. They also averred that they had already approached the Board for de-bonding of their unit vide letter dated 4-5-95 and that the Ministry had agreed to accede to their request in principle. They denied that they were obliged to fulfil export obligation of 1500 MTs. 5. The Commissioner has no doubt in the impugned order recorded the findings against the appellants regarding non-fulfilment of export obligation and condition of minimum value addition. But the bare perusal of the order that he has failed to give any allowance of the FOB value of the goods exported by them during the years 1993-94 to 1996-97 as detailed above, while confirming the customs duty on the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erefore, in terms of the letter of the Government of India referred to the above dated 10-3-95, the demand of duty could be confirmed by the Commissioner only after a definite conclusion had been arrived at by the Development Commissioner. 7. The question as to whether the appellants had not fulfilled their export obligation and conditions of minimun value addition completely and to what extent the customs duty could be demanded from them when they had exported the goods as 100% EOU continuously during the years 1993-94 to 1996-97 of the total value of Rs. 278.55 lakhs, requires close scrutiny of facts and material on record. Prima facie, the allowance of the export for these years of the value of Rs. 278.55 lakhs, was required to b....