2016 (2) TMI 106

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....   ORDER Per S K Mohanty The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is registered with the Central Excise Department as a 100% Exported Oriented Undertaking (EOU) and is engaged in the manufacture of telecom transmission equipment falling under chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant had been granted license for Private Bonded Warehouse with manufactu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order dated 28.02.2012. In appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi vide impugned order dated 25.04.2013 has upheld the demand of Rs. 3,54,598/- towards cost recovery charges. However, the interest amount confirmed in the adjudication order was dropped and also the penalty was reduced to Rs. 5,000/- vide the impugned order. Confirmation of the cost recovery charges in the impugned order ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... years 2007, 2008 and 2009, the appellant paid Rs. 2,32,500/- per year on its own and from 2010, it opted to operate under the MOT Scheme. It is his submission that since the appellant on its own had opted to pay the cost recovery charges and Rs. 3,54,598/- to that account has been short paid, the Revenue is justified in confirming the said charges vide the impugned order. 4. I have heard the L....