TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that as per the appeal memorandum even if benefit Notification No. 08/1997-CE dated 1/3/1997 is extended to them and their plea of duplication of demand is accepted even then appellant would have duty liability of ₹ 22,66,696/-. In addition they would have the interest liability which would also be in the same range or even more. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has pleaded financial hardship and submitted unit is sick and is before BIFR. - No prima facie case in favour of assessee - Partial stay granted. - Application No. E/STAY/98320/14-MUM In Appeal No. E/85620/14-MUM - - - Dated:- 2-2-2015 - Mr. P.K. Jain, Member(Technical) And Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri Kiran Sawle, Advocate For the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enous cotton yarn. On query from the bench that what is the basis of the said claim, Ld Counsel could not submit any supporting evidence like issue of raw material, good manufactured and cleared in domestic market except statement submitted to the Development Commissioner for DTA sale permission on 18/8/2000. We have gone through the said statement. The said statement indicates the value of indigenous and imported raw material used in total production and for export. In fact, from the said statement; it appears that entire imported raw material was not used in the production of the goods exported. Learned Counsel took us through the records maintained by them. We have gone through the same. However the said records only indicate when the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso submitted that as 100% EOU, they are required to maintain detailed account of goods received and their utilization. Ld. A.R. also submitted that in para 18 appellant has admitted duty liability of almost 23 lakhs(which would be even if all his claims are admitted) and if interest and penalties are included this would be over sixty lakhs. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5. We find that applicant is not able to produce any evidence so as to indicate that the goods cleared in DTA were made from indigenously/domestically manufactured material alone. In the circumstances, they will not be eligible for the Notification No. 08/1997-CE dated 1/3/1997. We also note that the appellant has not able to answer the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
