9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondents. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. This is an appeal against the finding of the Commissioner holding that during a particular period, the appellants instead of following the provision of Notification No. 214/86 followed the procedure set out under Rule 173N and, therefore they were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 214/86. 2. The appellants are manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. The authorities below confirmed the demand on the ground that the benefit of Notification No. 214/86 was not admissible to the appellants during the period for which the demand has been raised. The Commissioner held that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit during the relevant period. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants filed this appeal. 3. Shri Gopal Prasad, ld. Advoca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere in addition following the procedure set out under Rule 173N. He submits that Rule 173N is a warehousing rule where the goods transferred under AR 3A and on reaching destination an endorsement of the receipt of the goods at the destination is made and AR 3A duly endorsed is sent back to the destination of origin. He submits that this document can be treated as document showing receipt of the sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods are manufactured out of raw materials supplied and manufactured goods are returned to the supplier of the raw materials. In the instant case, there is no allegation in the SCN that the leather was not received by the appellants or shoe uppers were not returned to the supplier of the leather. Thus at best it can be lapse which is only procedural lapse. Looking to this aspect, we set aside t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
