TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The resultant effect of allowing de-bonding and holding that value addition has been achieved by the respondent is that there was no willful attempt to evade duty by importing duty free goods for EOU without ever intending to operate and manufacture the goods in the EOU Unit. Once the element of intention to evade duty is absent and as a matter of fact there is no such allegation in the SCN, demand of duty, confiscation of capital goods and imposition of penalty ought not to have been fastened on the respondent. It is not a laconic order or perfunctory in that sense of the term which has not dealt with the facts and law applicable. Confiscation and penalty set aside - decided against Revenue. - TAXC No. 18 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 20- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xport obligations. Consequently, the respondent applied and were granted de-bonding by the DGFT authorities on 08.09.1994. They stopped manufacture in 1995 and completed export of the available manufactured stock by March, 1996. On being informed about their debonding obligation, the respondent satisfied the said debonding duty. The respondent was also alleged to have failed to achieve the required value addition. However, the Development Commissioner got details of the value addition undertaken by the respondent and on due verification by the jurisdictional Superintendent show cause noticed dated 23.08.1999 for having failed to achieve value addition was withdrawn on 31.12.2002, inter-alia holding that the respondent has achieved the value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igation, the duty demand, confiscation of capital goods and penalty should not have been interfered by the Tribunal. Referring to the order passed by this Court on 13.08.2015 in TAXC No.13 of 2015 {Commissioner, Central Excise Customs Service Tax vs. M/s Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd.}, Shri Pandey would argue that the impugned order is unreasoned, therefore, the matter deserves to be remitted back to the Tribunal for decision afresh. 9. Per contra, Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the impugned order is a well reasoned order having dealt with all the facts and material issues, no interference in this appeal is called for. He would also submit that no substantial question of law is arising in this appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it to prematurely opt out of 100% scheme is possible and permissible only when the authorities are satisfied that the EOU Unit is not able to meet out the conditions of the scheme for circumstances beyond his control. 13. It always remained open for the authority to refuse debonding and at the same time initiate action for payment of duty which the respondent was exempted at the time of import of capital goods for the EOU Unit. The resultant effect of allowing de-bonding and holding that value addition has been achieved by the respondent is that there was no willful attempt to evade duty by importing duty free goods for EOU without ever intending to operate and manufacture the goods in the EOU Unit. Once the element of intention to evade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
