w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s Kumar Cotex Limited. v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur


Company & Directors' Information:- H N COTEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120GJ2013PTC075910

Company & Directors' Information:- N B COTEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17200MH2011PTC219248

Company & Directors' Information:- S K COTEX LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17231HR1994PLC032315

Company & Directors' Information:- K. S. COTEX (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17300MP2011PTC025847

Company & Directors' Information:- V. T. COTEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120GJ2012PTC071478

Company & Directors' Information:- D K COTEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17110MH2005PTC157107

Company & Directors' Information:- S B COTEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17300MP2009PTC022644

Company & Directors' Information:- R K COTEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17200DL2010PTC202564

    Central Excise Appeal No. 239 - 241 of 2007 (Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. CE-04/2007 (Commr) dated 08.01.2007, passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Guntur)

    Decided On, 15 June 2010

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore

    By, HONOURABLE MR. M.V. RAVINDRAN
    By, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) & HONOURABLE MR. P. KARTHIKEYAN
    By, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

    For the Appellant : Smt. Radha Arun, Consultant. For the Respondent : Smt. Sudha Koka, SDR.



Judgment Text

PER : M.V. RAVINDRAN


All these appeals directed against the Order-in-Original No. CE-04/2007 Comm r) dated 08.01.2007, passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Guntur.


2. Heard both sides and perused the records.


3. The issue involved in these cases is regarding benefit of Notification No. 8/97-CE dated 1/3/1997 and 23/2003-CE dated 31.3.2003 to the appellant. The appellant company is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (E.O.U.), governed by Export Policy and LOP given by the Development Commissioner. The case of the Revenue as in the Order-in-Original is that the assessee company was not following the provisions of EXIM Policy. It is the submission of the learned Consultant that they have obtained ex-post facto permission for the clearances. She also draws our attention to the finding portion of the adjudicating order. She submits that the appellant had filed detailed written submissions in reply to the Show Cause Notice regarding non-exigibility, but the same has not been considered by the adjudicating authority.


4. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the adjudicating authority did not render any findings on the detailed submissions made by the assessee in reply to the Show Cause Notice. In view of this, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, following the principles of Natural Justice. All the issues are kept open for adjudication. Since these mat

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ters are of the year 2006, the adjudicating authority is directed to dispose off the matter as early as possible. (Pronounced and dictated in the court)
O R