9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (6) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent. [Order per : A.C.C. Unni, Member (J)]. Shri K.K. Gupta, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants who were manufacturers of Cigarettes had obtained cut tobacco under Chapter X procedure of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to enable them to avail the benefit of Notification No. 356/86, dated 24-6-1986. Subsequently, a part of the said tobacco was used by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be made against them. In this connection, ld. Counsel refers to three letters sent by the appellants to the Range Superintendent on 16-3-1991, 18-3-1991 and 21-3-1991 (Annexure-A to the Memorandum of Appeal), by which the appellants had informed the Range Superintendent that they are making use of part of the cut tobacco for purposes of export and they were informing the Range Superintendent ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered the submissions of both sides and have also perused the records. We find no reason to disagree with the conclusions of the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order. Ld. Counsel had brought to our notice the Tribunal decisions in American Dry Fruits Stores v. C.C.E. reported in 1992 (61) E.L.T. 709 and C.C.E. v. T.I. Cycles of India reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 497 (Tribunal). The Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purposes for which the concession had been given. Even under Rule 196A, for purposes of diverting surplus of the goods for the purpose of export, the said rule provides for the condition of prior approval of the proper Officer. The three letters which had been relied upon by the appellants as evidence of complying with the requirement of Rule 196A do not, in our view, satisfy the condition of Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
