2009 (3) TMI 164

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wards duty of customs and excise within eight weeks. There is another miscellaneous application filed by the revenue stating that our stay order has not been complied with by the assessee and therefore the appeal should be dismissed. 2. The applicant in their application has submitted that the imported capital goods are still lying in customs bond and duty is demandable only when goods are ex-bonded. Therefore, the present demand is premature and on this submission they have referred to the following decisions which according to them were not considered while passing the stay order. (a) LML Ltd. - 2002 (142) E.L.T. 273 (S.C.) (b) C.L.P. Zippers Ltd. - 2005 (192) E.L.T. 730 (T) (c) Pashupati Fabrics Ltd. - 2005 (184) E.L.T. 41 (T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as on the date of issue of show cause notice (25-8-2004) would be around 30% and as on today will be 100%. 5. The applicant in their application has said that the stay order relies upon the decision of the tribunal in the case of Krishna Filaments vide order No. A/448 to 450/08/CSTB/C-I dated 14-8-08 [2008 (231) E.L.T. 238 (T)] but the facts of their case are different as in the case of Krishna Filaments there was a conscious order from Development Commissioner for de-bonding of the unit, while in the present proceedings there is no such order of debonding. At the time of hearing it was further brought to our notice that the tribunal decision in the case of Krishna Filaments has now been quashed by the High Court without going into meri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....filling the same in future, and non-renewal of green card after march 2005 there has been a clear cut violation of conditions of notification 13/81 as amended by notification 53/97 for imported goods and notification 1/95 in respect of indigenous goods. In view of this it has been observed in our order that the tribunal decisions cited by the applicant are not relevant. The same reasoning applies for the apex court decisions in the case of SIV Industries and the now cited decision in the case of Parsin Chemicals. Both these decisions relate to these cases where duty is demanded as a result of debonding either on the asking of the assessee or on the completion of the bonding period. The present dispute relates to demand of duty for non-fulfi....