9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (7) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants cleared 77 polished granite slabs measuring 353.9374 Sq. Mtrs. for export under bond to Hong Kong from their factory in Udaipur against AR-4 No. 2, dated 21-4-1992. The goods were sealed at the factory premises in a container. It has been claimed that the said container met with an accident near Adalaj container Yard at Ahmedabad and information in this regard was given by the appellants clearing agent to the Assistant Collector of Customs, C.F.S., Adalaj vide their letter dated 24-4-1992. According to the appellants the Assistant Collector of Customs, Adalaj inspected the contents of the container and recorded the damage suffered by the goods. On an application made by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... slabs cleared for export but not exported. The appellants in their reply to the show cause notice and also during the personal hearing contended that no duty was chargeable since the damaged granite slabs were permitted to be returned back to the factory under Rule 97A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the same were lying in the factory. However, by order dated 3-1-1994 the Additional Collector held that the duty was recoverable on goods which were permitted to be cleared without payment of duty for the purpose of export but were not actually exported. Being aggrieved by the Additional Collector s order the appellants preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who by the impugned order confirmed the findings of the Additional C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that duty was demandable on quantity 267.8935 Sq. mtrs. of polished granite slabs which were cleared for export under bond without payment of duty but were not exported is erroneous mainly on the ground that the goods in question which were cleared for export allowed to be returned to their factory for reprocessing under Rule 97A and no duty on such returned goods lying in the factory could be demanded unless they were disposed of in any manner otherwise than for the production of the goods for the same class as provided in sub-rule (3) of Rule 97A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In support of his contention that the goods were allowed to be returned to the factory under Rule 97A the learned counsel for the appellants has mainly relied o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition laid down in the said rule are satisfied. one of the important conditions as incorporated in proviso (vi) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 97A is that the value of the goods at the time of return to the factory in the opinion of the Collector should not be less than the amount of the duty originally paid upon them or covered by the bond entered into by the owner under Rule 13 at the time of their Clearance from their factory. 6. Since in the records of the case there is nothing to show that steps were taken to ascertain whether conditions laid down in Rule 97A subject to which the disputed goods cleared for export could be allowed to be returned to the appellants factory and in particular, whether the condition in proviso (vi) of sub-rule ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
