AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1535
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... setting up the EOU in 1986. The appellant was registered as 100% Export Oriented Unit and engaged in manufacture of silk fabrics for exports. The appellant opted for de-bonding of the unit in the year 1992 subject to payment of applicable customs duty in terms of the Customs Act, 1962 and the EXIM policy, 1992-97 and the conditions stipulated in the letter of intent issued by the Board of Approval. In terms of the scheme, the appellant started the manufacturing activity of silk yarn in 1988. However, due to liberal government policy, in 1990, China started dumping its silk with one forth of rate then prevailing into India that resulted severe problems to the silk industry in the country including the appellant's unit. Thereafter, the appellant lost the domestic and export market and sunk into losses. Thus, the appellant could not meet and achieve export turnover which it obliged to fulfill and therefore the appellant opted to exit from EOU scheme as it was not viable to continue in the scheme. The competent authority i.e., the Development Commissioner granted "in principle approval" to exit from the scheme on 09.06.1992 with conditions including payment of full duties and payment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecretary, SIA to allow the goods to be assessed under heading 9801 under Project Import Regulations. Meanwhile, the jurisdiction Assistant Commissioner issued detention memo vide his order, dated 16.11.1997 detaining the plant and machinery on the ground that the customs duty for de-bonding was not paid. (iv) The appellant requested the Secretariat of Industrial Approval, Government of India, New Delhi vide letter, dated 17.12.1997 to allow one time de-bonding option for 100% EOU in terms of the Notification No. 477(E), dated 25.07.1991. As per which, compulsory licensing of silk industry has been abolished and sale of 50% is allowed in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). In the EXIM policy for 1992-97, facility to opt for EPCG was also allowed. The appellant worked out the duty liability on the capital goods and raw-materials procured without payment of duty on the value of Rs. 60,35,864/- (after depreciation) and the duty payable worked out to Rs. 6,03,586/- only. The Development Commissioner, Vizag vide letter, dated 13.01.1998 granted "in principle approval" to withdraw from 100% EOU subject to fulfillment of standards stipulated in the letter of permission granted on 09.08.1992 by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant as 100% EOU. Aggrieved by the order, dated 10.08.2004 of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant again preferred an appeal before the CESTAT in Appeal No. C/446/2004. The CESTAT passed a final order No. A/31463/2017, dated 11.09.2017 confirming the order, dated 10.08.2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in O-I-A No. 4 of 2004. Aggrieved by the final order No. A/31463 of 2017, dated 11.09.2017 passed by the CESTAT, the appellant filed the present appeal. 3. While admitting the appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was right in deciding the appeal without considering the matter not discussed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as was directed by it in its Final Order No.314 of 1998, dated 17.02.1998?" 4. On behalf of the respondent, a counter-affidavit has been filed: (i) It is averred in the counter-affidavit that the issue has originated in Ananthapur Division which is earlier under the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Industrial Excise and Customs, Tirupati Commissionarate and consequent on re-organization in the Central Board of Excise and Customs, during October, 2014, the jurisdiction of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the CESTAT rightly upheld the First Appellate Authority findings and categorically held that there are no wrong findings in them. It is further averred that the CESTAT also categorically stated the ratio of case laws cited by the appellant does not applicable in the instant case as they are totally different from the facts of the instant case eventually and the CESTAT dismissed the appeal as devoid of merits and accordingly prayed this Court to dismiss the present appeal as devoid of merits. 5. Submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for appellant: (i) The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the department issued a letter, dated 08.08.2006 wherein the Government has issued a cancellation of letter of permission and suo-moto bonding from EOU scheme. In view of de-bonding order issued on 08.08.2006 and the appellant was still an export oriented unit as on that day, the condition 10 of the Standard Conditions attached to Industrial License in respect of 100% Export Oriented Undertaking would come into operation and the authority should have passed an order in terms of the said clause. The learned counsel further contends that though the CESTAT had extracted the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venue. 7. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri B.V.S. Chalapati Rao, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Excise and Central Tax appearing for respondent and carefully perused the material available on record. 8. Findings and reasons: (a) The main contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant is that by virtue of the clarification issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry vide letter, dated 10.05.2019, the unit was issued suo-moto de-bonding order on 08.08.2006 and the same may be treated as final date of exit of the unit and there upon condition No.10 of the Standard Conditions attached to Industrial License in respect of 100% Export Oriented Undertaking would come into play. (b) The contention of the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent is that the contention of the appellant that they are claiming 100% Export Oriented Unit by referring to the suo-moto de-bonding letter issued by VSEZ, Development Commissioner, Visakhapatnam on 08.08.2006 has been properly and empathically addressed by the appellate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on clearance." 9. The contention of the appellant is that though the CESTAT had noted the contention of the appellant in para No.7 of its order, dated 17.09.2017 about applying the condition 10 of the Standard Conditions attached to Industrial License in respect of 100% Export Oriented Undertaking regarding the de-bonding order issued on 08.08.2006, there is no discussion or finding on that aspect. Though the respondent has stated in their counter that the claim of the appellant with regard to 100% EOU was considered referring to the suo-moto de-bonding letter, dated 08.08.2006 issued by the VSEZ, Development Commissioner, Visakhapatnam by the appellate authority in its order, dated 10.08.2004, it was not considered. 10. On careful examination of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 10.08.2004, there is no mention about considering that aspect. Even in the order, dated 11.09.2017 of the CESTAT also this issue has not been considered. The Commissioner (Appeals) in its order, dated 10.08.2004 held that the order passed by the Assessing Authority had attained finality and he has no power to modify or over-rule the order and the findings given by his predecessor. In fa....