9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation No. 356/86-C.E., dated 24-6-86 (as amended) and by following the procedure prescribed under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Under another Notification No. 355/86-C.E., dated 24-6-86, cigarettes manufactured out of duty-paid cut tobacco were exempt from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as was equivalent to the duty of excise (leviable under the Central Excises and Salt Act) already paid on cut tobacco used in the manufacture of such cigarettes. However, such exemption was available only to cigarettes cleared for home consumption. The following proviso was added to Notification No. 355/86-C.E. by the amending Notification No. 69/94-C.E., dated 15-3-94 :- Provided that where cigarettes, falling under the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority for de novo adjudication in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. The remand order had noted the submission of the party that they were prepared to produce the relevant AR-4 (duly certified by the Customs authorities) and other related documents in support of their claim. It enabled the party to produce the certified AR-4 and other related documents to the original authority. In the remanded proceedings, however, the party could not produce the original AR-4, though they produced the original Shipping Bill, original GP-2 and a copy of the bank certificate evidencing realization of export proceeds. The original authority rejected the claim of the party on the ground that the original AR-4 was not produced. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 457 (T) = 2002 (48) RLT 810 (CEGAT-Delhi)] Ld. Counsel further submitted that, in the impugned order, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not follow his own view taken in the earlier order, wherein it was observed that the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Kanwal Engineers (supra) was relevant to the case. The lower appellate authority also did not care to examine the question whether the original Shipping Bill and/or other documents produced by the appellants were admissible as proof of export of goods for the purpose of granting the benefit of Notification No. 355/86-C.E. as amended by Notification No. 69/94-C.E. The DR reiterated the findings and observations of the lower authorities. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Bill could be accepted as proof of export as a substitute for original AR 4/AR 4A. We are, thus convinced that the impugned order was passed without proper application of mind. 6. In view of our findings, we set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal by way of remand, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the question whether any document other than AR 4/AR 4A could be accepted as proof of export, for grant of the benefit of Notification No. 355/86-C.E. (as amended by Notification No. 69/94-C.E.) to the appellants in respect of the duty paid by them on cut tobacco and the further question whether cash refund of the duty could be granted in lieu of credit facility. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) shall decide the issues in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
