TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, Member (J) and Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) Shri P.M. Dave, Advocate, for the Appellant. Dr. M.K. Rajak, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. - The appeals filed by M/s, Goyal Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., a 100% EOU and Shri R.R. Goyal, Director of the appellant 100% EOU were dismissed by the order of the Tribunal No. A/1620 to1623/ WZB/AHD/07 dt.10-7-2007. At that time, no one had appeared for the appellants and subsequently on a miscellaneous application filed for restoration of appeals by the two appellants, the order was recalled in respect of their appeals appreciating the fact that the appellants did not receive the notice of the hearing vide order No. M/248-249/WZB/AHD/08 dt. 4-3-2008. 2. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 (221) E.L.T. 45 (Tri.-LB)] 5. Ld. Advocate also pointed out that the demand is time-barred. Ld. DR reiterates the arguments advanced in order-in-original. 6. As regards the proposal for recovery of duty of Rs. 8,67,172/- leviable on the illicit removal of 18,846.37 Kgs. of polyester texturised yarn, the ld. Advocate has stated that the show cause notice was issued proposing recovery: under Section 72 read with Section 28(1) of Customs Act of 1962, whereas the adjudication order confirms the demand under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. This point was raised before the Original Authority also and the Adjudicating Authority held that wrong quotation of Sections of Customs Act, 1962 does not vitiate the show cause notice sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd of Rs. 2,11,138/-, the ld. Advocate wanted it to be treated as clearance to other 100% EOU as deemed exports. However, we find that these clearances have been discussed in detail in paragraphs 31 to 32 of the adjudication order wherein it was found during investigation that the claim that the goods have been cleared to 100% EOU was false and subsequently, the contentions of the party that the goods have been returned was also not found to be correct. Therefore, the appeal fails as far as this portion of the demand is concerned. 8. As regards the demand of duty of Rs. 5,19,588/- being Central excise duty equal to aggregate of customs duty on DTA clearance of 10,182 Kgs. of texturised yarn etc., the 1d. Advocate for the appellant state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
