9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Heard Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant for the Appellant and Shri J.R. Madhiam, JDR for the Respondent. 2. Mr. Chattopadhyay submits that the Appellant are engaged in manufacture of Tyre Flaps. They export the goods through Merchant Exporters. They cleared 2482 pcs. of Tyre Flaps under 15 No. of A.R-4 without payment of duty on 7-5-1999. The Merchant Exporter failed to export the said go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the persons received the letters on the same day but they did not intimate any refusal to grant permission. A show cause notice was issued to them. The Maritime Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata demanded the duty liability of 14,324.25 paise and interest and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1000/- (One Thousand only) on the said exporter. The Appellant preferred the appeal against this order befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand is time barred. The goods were received in factory on 3-7-2000 and the show cause notice was issued on 20-3-2002. The demand is not maintainable. Therefore he submits that the appeal may be allowed. Ld. JDR supports the impugned orders. 4. In present case the Appellant has complied the provisions of Rule 173M of Central Excise Rules 1944. The appellant received the goods in factory under D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ient reasons are explained. 5. In present case the exporter failed to export the goods and that is why the goods were returned back to the factory. In view of above, the Commissioner/Joint Commissioner ought to have granted the permission for extension of time because the goods returned in the factory within a period of 18 months i.e. within the extended period under Rule 173M(1). 6. In view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
