1998 (5) TMI 171 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Appeal against Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Order for not logging D.E.E.C. Book; Dispute over availing benefits under Central Excise Rules 12 and 13.

Issue 1: Appeal against Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Order for not logging D.E.E.C. Book
The appeal was filed by M/s. Calcutta Laminating Industries against the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Order, which denied their request to log their D.E.E.C. Book. The appellants had exported Hessian Bags with LDPE Liner without importing any raw materials under Notification No. 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-1992. The appellants argued that the conditions of the Notification would apply only if the goods were imported and the benefit of the Notification was availed of. They also submitted additional documents and certificates to support their case after the hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Assistant Commissioner had found that the appellants had availed the benefits of Rules 12 and 13 of the Central Excise Rules, leading to the denial of logging their D.E.E.C. Book. However, the appellants claimed they had not availed of these rules and requested a re-consideration based on the certificates provided.

Issue 2: Dispute over availing benefits under Central Excise Rules 12 and 13
The dispute arose regarding whether the appellants had availed the benefits under Central Excise Rules 12(i)(b) and 13(i)(b). The Assistant Commissioner's decision was based on the belief that the appellants had exported goods by utilizing the benefits of these rules, as evidenced by the Central Excise Certificates. However, the appellants, in their submissions, explicitly stated that they had not availed of these benefits. The Tribunal noted a factual dispute on this matter. The Tribunal found that the factual position was in dispute, and the matter needed to be sent back to the original adjudicating authority, the Assistant Commissioner, for a clear finding based on the evidence provided by the appellants. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellants should not unnecessarily delay in producing evidence before the Assistant Commissioner for a prompt decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal directed the matter to be remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for a clear finding on whether the appellants had availed the benefits under Central Excise Rules 12 and 13, based on the evidence presented. The appellants were instructed to provide any necessary evidence promptly without unnecessary delays.