TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the production. Under the circumstances, we do not see any reason to remand the case for the said purpose. - applicant has not been able to make any case in support of their contentions and that they have cleared the goods without payment of any duty as against the earlier period when they were clearing the goods on certain payment of duty (and dispute was relating to effective rates) and also that the applicant is having financial difficulties and is a sick unit, we direct the applicant to deposit an amount of ₹ 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores only) within a period of six weeks - Partial stay granted. - Applications E/S/93275 to 93277/14-Mum in appeals E/85601 to 85603/14-Mum - - - Dated:- 3-3-2015 - Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification and the applicant does not satisfy any of the three conditions and is therefore not eligible for the benefit of Notification 23/2003. The second contention of the Revenue is that the said goods are not eligible for the benefit of Notification 30/2004-CE as the said Notification is not applicable to 100% EOUs. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. He submitted that in applicants own case for the earlier period, this Tribunal vide order reported in 2014 (312) ELT 324 (Tri.-Mumbai), has remanded the matter and, therefore, in the present case also, the matter can be remanded. He further submitted that as held in the earlier case, the benefit of Notification 31/2004 will be available to them. Further in the present case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 011. Further, the said returns also indicate that the material was issued for production during various months. So, from the said monthly statutory return, it is very clear that the applicant has not only imported but also used the imported material for the manufacture of the goods and under the circumstances, no useful purpose will be served by remanding the matter. It was also submitted that the applicant is not maintaining any lot register or any other document so as to prove that the goods cleared to DTA are manufactured from the indigenous material. The learned Commissioner (AR) also submitted that for the clearances covered by the earlier mentioned judgment, the appellant was paying some duty and the disputes were relating to the rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iii) Such goods, if manufactured and cleared by the unit other than export oriented undertaking are wholly exempt from duties of excise or are chargeable to NIL rate of duty. As discussed in para 5 abobve, applicant is not satisfying condition (i) above. We find that condition (ii) provides that the goods cleared are as per sub-paragraphs (a), (d), (e) and (g) of paragraph 6.8 of the Foreign Trade Policy. It is not the case of the applicant that they are satisfying the condition stipulated in the said para or got the permission from the Development Commissioner. We also note that the applicant is also not satisfying condition (iii) as held by us in their own case for the earlier period referred in earlier paragraphs. Thus, we f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
