2009 (9) TMI 824

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le 209A of CER, 1944/Rule 26 of CER 2001/2002. 2. From the records, we find that the matters have come up on Board on number of occasions when the appellant M/s. I.C. Textiles were either not represented or the matter was adjourned repeatedly with an intimation to the appellant to the effect that - "by way of last chance". 3. As such, we are of the view that M/s. I.C. Textiles are not interested in pursuing their appeal. Their appeal is, accordingly, dismissed for non-prosecution. As regards other appellants, we find that they are purchasers of yarn from M/s. I.C. Textiles, against CT-2 certificate/Annexure I certificate. Shri Nirav Shah, the learned advocate appeared on behalf of M/s. Madhu Impex. M/s. Bombay Textiles has filed a wri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Noticee No. 1 as mentioned in CT-2/Annexure I certificate, had been computed by treating M/s. I.C. Textiles as a DTA unit, not by treating it a 100% EOU. Noticee Nos. 2 to 7, being fully aware of the provisions of the EXIM Policy as well as Central Excise Rules, should have known that they were not be entitled to purchase the goods free of C.E. duty from a 100% EOU under Rule 13(I)(b) of CER, 1944/Rule 19(2) of CER, 2001/2002 for use in the manufacture of goods for export, but still they purchased cotton yarn without payment of duty from Noticee No. 1. I also find that after acquiring the cotton yarn free of C.E. duty, the fabrics made out of the same have been exported under DEPB scheme and thus they have enjoyed double benefit and they ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elieve that the documentation of the impugned goods were free from any encumbrance of Central Excise, mainly on the ground that those were procured under Annexure-I, duly endorsed by competent authority of Central Excise. (vii) That the Revenue's case is based upon the fact that 100% EOU can make only such clearances in DTA as specified in the aforesaid provisions. It was not possible for the appellant to know whether the clearances made by M/s. I.C. Textiles are other than those "specified under the aforesaid provisions", under which admittedly same could be cleared by M/s. I.C. Textiles in DTA. (viii) That it is well settled that penalty under Rule 26 cannot be imposed upon any company or partnership firm, as held by the Tribunal in....