9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of Rs. 1,50,500/- being central excise duty on the aforesaid bags should not be recovered from them under Rule 14A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and why a penalty should not be imposed on them. On considering the reply of the party, the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chittorgarh vide his Order dated 28-4-2000 confirmed the duty of Rs. 1,50,500/- on the party under Rule 14A read with Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on them. 2. The party filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur who has reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,000/- but otherwise rejected the appeal of the party. 3. This is an appeal against the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Sh. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 26-4-1999 from where the rice was exported. He has further observed that on verification of the original copies of the relevant shipping bills, it was observed that the name of the supporting manufacturer was written by erasing and over-writing and that on verification from New Customs House, Mumbai, they intimated that the name of the supporting manufacturer has been changed and hand written as Chittor Polyfab Pvt. Ltd., whereas in the drawback copies of these shipping bills, the name of the supporting manufacturer is different. Consequently, the Asstt. Commissioner in his order has rejected the proof of export filed by the party and confirmed the aforesaid amount of duty on them. The lower appellate authority in his order has also obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferent. (ii) The bags cleared under the said AR.4s have been used for packing of rice from which it is clear that these bags have not been exported directly and therefore the assessee has not followed the procedure as laid down under Rule 13 (1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (iii) The party has filed shipping bills and bills of lading under which rice packed in P.P. bags has been exported and not the empty bags. Hence the AR. 4s cannot be linked with the goods exported. (iv) The operation of the packing of rice in the P.P. bags is carried out at the exporter's godown/premises, therefore, it cannot be confirmed whether the P.P. bags as mentioned in the AR. 4s has been used in the export products. (v) On verification f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
