2014 (2) TMI 218

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l the three applicants are seeking waiver of pre-deposit by stay applications listed before us today. 2. The facts are as under :- 2.1 VTIPL was approved as 100% EOU by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce and were granted a licence for a private bonded warehouse, under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 and permission to carry out manufacture in-bond under Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicants have executed a general bond under Section 59 of the Customs Act, with Assistant Commissioner for Rs. 1.00 crore. The unit was operating upto December and imported raw materials (POY) by availing exemption under Notification No. 53/97-Cus., dated 3-6-1997, which was used in manufacture of Polyester Textured Yarn (PTY). As ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uty on POY was confirmed and the imported goods were confiscated and various penalties have been imposed on the applicant firm as well as penalties on the co-applicants. 3. The ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice as they were not supplied the relied upon documents as well as non-relied upon documents. Moreover, as requested by the applicants, the cross examination of the persons, whose statement was relied upon in the show-cause notice were not allowed. He also submits that during the course of their arguments they relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Surat v. Gold Multifab Ltd., reported in 2008 (232) E.L.T. 753 (Tri.-Ahmd.) and CCE, Sur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt have rightly being denied the benefit of Notification No. 53/97. Hence, at this stage the applicant be asked to make pre-deposit of the duty confirmed along with penalties. 6. Heard both sides in detail. 7. We find that there are merits in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the applicants that they have imported the goods claiming the benefit of Notification No. 53/97 and used the said imported goods in manufacture of PTY, which was cleared by them to another 100% EOU on the basis of CT-3 certificate and they have also received re-warehousing certificates to indicate receipt of PTY supplied by them to the recipient unit. There is no specific allegation in the show-cause notice or in the impugned order that the applicant fi....