2018 (3) TMI 1443

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondent Company to set aside the duty demand of Rs. 95,07,701/-, confiscation of capital goods and penalty of Rs. 25 Lacs. 2. The respondent is a hundred percent Export Oriented Unit, (EOU) having been issued an Industrial license of the said category on 19.04.1990 for manufacture and export of Latex Hand Gloves with annual capacity of 30 million pieces and annual export target value of Rs. 168 Lacs. 3. Admittedly, the respondent company imported capital goods valued at Rs. 52,80,833/- with duty free and imported inputs and also procured inputs from domestic tariff area duty free valued at Rs. 2.03 crore. The duty forgone in favour of respondent Company amounted to Rs. 1,92,77,57/-. 4. The appellant commenced production in March,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....005 the respondent preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which has been allowed by the impugned order. The Tribunal set aside the duty demand, confiscation of capital goods and penalty and instead directed the respondent to pay the applicable duty on the capital goods on the written down value amounting to Rs. 22,18,075/- as on 31.03.1996 along with interest. The respondent Company has not assailed this part of the order. 7. The present appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "(1) (A) Whether the order of confiscation of the capital goods and imposition of penalty was fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the case? (1) (B) Whether the Tribunal erred in law in setting aside t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the absence of any challenge to the said part of the order, we are afraid, an independent challenge only to the order setting aside confiscation of capital goods and imposition of penalty may not be open to challenge. 11. Despite the above, we may notice that the show cause notice issued against the respondent did not refer to any particular nature of default as envisaged in various sub-clause of Section 111 for which the respondent would be held liable for confiscation of capital goods. 12. It is also important to bear that the appellant has not assailed the validity of the order passed by the DGFT allowing the respondent company's application for de-bonding and has accepted the said order by allowing the respondent to pay 10% o....