2008 (4) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t goods in the factory, the appellant did not fulfil the export obligation. The adjudicating authority also demanded duty on the raw materials imported from the beginning including raw materials/components exported by the appellants, remaining in the bonded store room and cleared to EFC account holder. 2. Heard both the parties. 3.1 The learned Advocate for the appellant submits that duty cannot be demanded on capital goods imported by the appellants since they have been used for the manufacture of goods sold to DTA with the permission of Development Commissioner and EFC account holder. The finding of the Commissioner that the capital goods were not installed in the factory is also not correct. The capital goods are still lying in the fac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uences. He also cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taarika Exports v. UOI- 2007 (212) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.) wherein it was held that penalty is imposable in case of non-fulfillment of export obligation and mis-utilisation of goods. 5.1 We find that the plea of the appellant that the matter should have been referred to the Director, STPI before issue of show cause notice is also not correct. The adjudicating authority has dealt with this issue in detail and has clearly stated that only after receipt of the letter from the Director, STPI, Gandhinagar dated 6-2-2004 referring the case of the assessee for recovery of duty to the department due to failure of fulfillment of export obligation SCN was issued. Since the expor....