2018 (4) TMI 1026

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... these occasions, none appeared for the assessee nor there has been any request for adjournment, despite notice. 3. Heard Ld. AR for the Revenue. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on a surprise visit to the Unit of the Assessee-appellant a 100% EOU on 29.11.2002, discrepancies were noticed in the stock of the finished goods and later on completion of investigation demand notice was issued on 26.08.2004 for recovery of aggregate customs duty amounting to Rs. 27,54,723 alleging clandestine removal of 765539.74 L. Mtrs of processed MMF. On adjudication the demands were confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeal before Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who in turn partly allowed their appea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e present period relates to after the amendment, therefore, the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Tirumala Seung Han Textiles Ltd. vs CCE (A) Hyderabad 2009 (237) ELT 145 (Tri. Bang.) followed in Maral Overseas Ltd. vs CCE, Indore 2016 (344) ELT 461 (Tri. Del.) are applicable. 7. On perusal of the grounds of appeal of the assessee we find that that they have not disputed the facts of clearance of finished goods from their 100% EOU Unit without payment of duty during the relevant period, however, the dispute raised in the appeal relates to computation of the demand for such clearance. It is stated that proviso to Section 3(1) of CEA, 1944 cannot be made applicable to their case but the computation should be carried out under Sectio....