TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the benefit of Notification No.24/2003 dated 31.03.2003, and that the goods have not been cleared in DTA. In the present case, the goods cleared for export got damaged in an accident and it cannot be said that the goods have been cleared in DTA - In an identical case, the Tribunal in the case of Madhav Marbles and Granites Ltd. [2008 (10) TMI 209 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], has held that the demand of du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Range Officer who visited the spot and a Mahazar (dated 04.12.2003) was drawn on the next day itself. The appellant also registered a FIR No.548/2003 dated 05.12.2003. The damaged goods were brought back into the EOU on 09.12.2003 under intimation to the Range Officer who inspected the damaged goods within the EOU. Subsequently, the appellant was issued with a Show cause notice proposing to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not applied for remission of duty, the appellant being an EOU is eligible to the benefit of Notification No.24/2003 dated 31.03.2003. In terms of this notification all goods manufactured by an EOU is fully exempted except in respect of goods cleared in DTA; that appellant had cleared the goods under bond for export and having not cleared the goods in DTA no duty is liable to be paid by appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remission of duty is allowable when goods cleared from the factory without payment of duty for export under bond are destroyed in an unavoidable accident. In an identical case, the Tribunal in the case of Madhav Marbles and Granites Ltd. (supra), has held that the demand of duty is not sustainable since the EOU is eligible for the benefit of Notification No.24/2003 dated 31.03.2003. 6. From ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
