TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 436
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e main appellant was engaged in the manufacture and export of yarn, manmade fabrics, readymade garments etc. They were approved as a 100% EOU and were granted necessary permissions in this regard. The main appellant were procuring indigenous raw materials and consumable without payment of duty in terms of Notification 1/1995-CE dated 04/1/1995 as amended. They were also importing raw materials and consumable without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 53/1997-CUS dated 03/6/1997 as amended. The Jurisdictional officers conducted certain enquiry regarding mis-use of the provisions of 100% EOU scheme by the main appellant. The enquiry revealed that the main appellant contravened various provisions of the EOU scheme resulting in non-pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d order contains no discussion and findings regarding the quantification of demand of such huge amount against the appellant. He submitted that the only ground on which the demand against the appellant have been confirmed is that of cancellation of LOP and their status as 100% EOU by the Development Commissioner. The learned Counsel submits that the fact that the unit was closed and their LOP was also cancelled is not in dispute. It is also a fact that 4 different notices have been issued covering the periods which are also covered in the present proceedings. Some of the demands made in the earlier show cause notices have also been confirmed, The present impugned order takes summarily the total value of goods procured, without payment of du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... impugned order arrived at the quantification of demand after due consideration of all the relevant facts and evidences on record. The learned Counsel for the appellant mainly emphasized that the impugned order was passed in a summary manner without taking into consideration the export performance of the appellant and also the confirmation of demands for the same period through earlier 4 show cause notices. He has not specifically contested the possibility of appellant not fulfilling certain export obligation resulting in requirement to pay the duty on the inputs procured without payment of duty. 8. We have carefully perused the impugned order. The learned Commissioner in his findings records that though repeated opportunities were given....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is seen that the Original Authority did not examine and give his finding that how the present demand of duty is over and above the already confirmed demands and whether there is overlapping of the quantification. It is apparent that there is overlapping demands as seen from the reason given by the Assistant Commissioner in his letter dated 22/05/2007. The earlier 4 show cause notices having been issued on different grounds is no reason for confirming the demanded amount again in the present proceedings. Even if they are on different grounds no discussion on such distinction has been made. As accepted by the learned AR the demands ave clearly overlapping. It is also clear that all the demands are linked to violation of the conditions of ....