2019 (10) TMI 811

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellant firm. During the check some short age of gray fabric admeasuring 1,74,195 L.M. of value Rs. 24,38,730/- (procured by the appellant in CT-3 from an EOU) were found when compared to stock in statutory records. In follow up action further evidence was gathered in the form of statement of partners of the appellant firm and also allegation by the appellant namely M/s. Seema Textiles, Surat. The investigation culminated in the show cause notice dated 26.07.2004 containing proposal, inter-alia (a) to demand duty of Rs. 23,71,731/- being the Central Excise Duty equal to aggregate duties of customs chargeable on goods manufactured in an EOU under proviso to sub-section (1) of the section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944 (b) interest unde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in original, therefore the present appeals. 2. Shri. Willingdon Christian, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants at the outset submits that he is not arguing case on the facts and the merit which the lower authority has passed the order but he raised all together a new legal issue that the appellant was a Partnership Firm and the same was dissolved by Dissolution Deed dated 09.03.2007, accordingly no proceeding could have been continued against the dissolved Partnership Firm. Therefore, the Order-In-Original as well as Order-In-Appeal passed by the authorities is illegal and incorrect. In support of this submission he placed reliance on the following Judgments:- • The State of Punjab Vs. Jullundur Vegetable Synd....