9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (1) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er : R. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This day only stay application was listed for hearing. After hearing both the sides, we have decided to take up the appeal itself since the issue involved in the stay application as well as in the appeal is the same and it falls within the short compass. 2. This is an appeal directed against the order in original bearing No. 93 of 1991 dated 4-7-1991, passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that this manufacturing activity was not covered by L-4 licence and the goods have been manufactured and cleared without payment of duty. Hence, adjudication proceedings were initiated and duty of Rs. 92,002.30 involved on the quantity manufactured and cleared for export was demanded and a penalty ofRs. 50,000/- was also imposed. The present appeal is against the aforesaid order. 3. Shri Patel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission is that they have not included this item in their licence and not removed them under AR 4 procedure. All the same, the shipping bills and the invoices, which formed the basis of the demand, indicate that the goods have been exported and the Addl. Collector is also convinced of this fact. He, therefore, pleaded that the duty demand is not justified. Since there was no intention of evading d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty amount is also fixed taking a lenient view." 6. In the context of the aforesaid finding, when the Department is satisfied about the fact of export of the goods by other collateral evidences viz. shipping bills and invoices, non-performance in effecting the export without following the AR 4 procedure boils down to a technical infringement and they cannot take away the substantive benefit of exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
