2004 (8) TMI 197

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lidity of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority. The issue raised in this appeal relates to the liability of the appellants to pay supervision charges in terms of Bond B-17 executed by them being an 100% EOU unit. The adjudicating authority had confirmed these charges amounting to Rs. 4,87,134/- under Sec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r, according to the Counsel, deserves to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, ld. SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. 4. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 5. The view of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that appeal against the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority confirming supervision and cost recovery charges against the appellants wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and recovery charges, cannot be legally sustained. No doubt the appellants during the relevant period, which is 2001-2002, were 100% EOU and executed Bond-17 in favour of the department. The relevant conditions of that Bond on the strength of which show cause was issued to the appellants and the charges have been confirmed against them are Nos. 8 and 9 which read as under :- "8. The obligors s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t record, has been brought on file by the department. Even the period for which any officer was posted permanently, had not been disclosed. All these facts are even missing in the show cause notice itself. All that has been alleged in the show cause notice that in terms of the above-referred two conditions of the Bond, the appellants had failed to pay the supervision and recovery charges. Even in ....