2017 (9) TMI 703

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uired under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ( in short "the Act") and the Appeal was dismissed. 2. The Appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit ("EOU") having its factory at village Tambati, Tal. Khalapur, Dist. Raigad, inter alia engaged in the manufacturing Terry Towels. The Appellant had been issued licenses under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 for operating bonded warehouse and permission under Section 65 of the Customs Act 1962 for carrying out "in bond manufacturing" in the said warehouse. The Central Government vide Notification No. 8/97-C.E. Dated 1st March 1997, as amended, exempted the finished products, rejects and waste or scrap specified in the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Appellate Tribunal (although two Appeals had been disposed off by the Commissioner (Appeals)) and the Appellate Tribunal by order dated 5th August 2008 set aside the finding of the authorities below and held that the product is a consumable and not a raw material and remitted the case to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision. Since the Appellate Tribunal had remanded the proceedings, without indicating that the remanded proceedings will be restricted in relation to only one order-in-original, the Appellant filed an application for rectification of mistake in the said order. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the application for rectification of mistake. The Appellant was unable to appear at the personal hearing fixed before the adj....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hs was in excess of the amount required to be deposited i.e. 7.5% of the amount recoverable under Section 35F of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal after hearing the Appellant dismissed the Appeal holding that the Appellant had not deposited 7.5% amount as required under Section 35F of the Act and that the Appeal is not maintainable. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has submitted that the deposit of 7.5% amount under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act had been complied with as the amount of Rs. 36,57,904.50 had been transferred by ICICI bank towards the recovery and which amount was sufficient to meet the requirement of pre-deposit. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has therefore, submitted that the impugn....