2005 (12) TMI 438

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ultant, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  The respondents in this appeal of the Revenue are a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of monuments [Heading 68.07 of the CETA Schedule]. The officers of Central Excise (Preventive) visited the unit on 18-2-1998 and conducted scrutiny of records and verification of physical stock of goods. They found that an excavator which had been received in t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the production manager of the unit was recorded later. From the results of these inquiries, it appeared to the department that the respondents had removed bonded goods without payment of duty or following statutory procedure. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued to the party for recovery of Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,30,750/-, Customs duty of Rs. 2,47,936/- and Additional Customs Duty of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 28-11-95 and a few decisions of the Tribunal, to hold that the order of adjudication without clearance from the Board of Approval or the Development Commissioner was not sustainable. This view taken by the lower appellate authority has been contested by the appellant on the ground that the instructions contained in Circular No. 122/95-Cus. are squarely applicable to a case of illicit removal an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was held, with reference to the Board's Circulars No. 21/95-Cus. and No. 122/95-Cus. ibid, that a show cause notice could be issued to a 100% EOU for demanding duty on goods allegedly removed in violation of the law relating to such EOUs, only after intimation of such violation to the Development Commissioner in charge of the EOU. This view taken by a Division Bench of this Tribunal is binding on ....