KALPESH SATYENDRA JHAVERI,J. - (1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the tribunal whereby tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and remitted the matter back to the original authority.
(2.) Counsel for the appellant has framed following substantial question of law:- i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in quashing the Order-in-Original and remanding the matter without considering the specific finding recorded with respect to the violation and non compliance done by the assessee?
(3.) The facts of the case are that the assessee intended to set up a 100% EOU for the manufacture of roasted dry fruits and spices in 1995. The assessee has imported certain capital goods and also procured certain indigenous goods availing exemption availabe to such EOUs in terms of notification no.53/97-Customs and 1/95 CE. However, the assessee was not undertaking any export as per the conditions of the permission granted by the Development Commissioner as well as bond executed with the Customs Authorities. There were repeated extensions of the Letter of Permission (LOP) by the Development Commissioner. The LOP was extended upto 31.3.2013. Since, the assessee did not fulfill the conditions of export for duty free procurement of capital goods an other items, the jurisdictional Commissioner initiated proceedings against them to demand and recover the customs duty/excise duty forgone in terms of the above notifications.;