9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in, Member (T)]. These appeals are filed by the Commissioner, C CE, Bhubaneswar against the order-in-appeal No. 18/BBSR-I/2003, dated 10-3-2003 wherein the department has challenged a part of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Grounds of filing appeal are given in the Annexure-A of the authorisation by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar which is reproduced below :- AN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich involved duty of Rs. 4,37,543/- as duty, goods involving duty of Rs. 2,79,395/- were exported and goods involving duty amounting to Rs. 1,42,732/- were brought back to the factory of the appellants as the same could not be exported and in respect of goods involving balance duty amounting to Rs. 15,416/- the appellant failed to furnish proof of export. AR-4 No. Date AR-4 Dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory was condoned. 2. ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AS PER PARA 9(C) As regards demand for duty on export goods involving duty of Rs. 1,42,732/- in respect of one AR-4s, referred in Para 8(C), the same was set aside as the goods were subsequently brought back to the factory. The orders passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise Customs, Bhubaneswar does not appear to be proper and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneswar does not appear to be correct and legal. In view of the above facts, the Order-in-Appeal No. 18/BBSR-I/2003, dated 10-3-2003 to the above extent setting aside the Order-in-Original passed by the Adjudication Authority is erroneous devoid of legal backing. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise Customs, Bhubaneswar order r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
