9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & 246/2000 valid up to 31-7-2005 and 31-8-2005 respectively. They had cleared the goods "Printed Polyester Fabrics" falling under CH No. 5406.29 of the Schedule to the CE Tariff of 1985 and manufactured out of wholly indigenous raw materials on 20-9-2000 & 28-9-2000 and 13-10-2000, 30-10-2000 & 11-12-2000 Act and cleared under cover of A.R. 4s under bond without payment for export under the provisions of erstwhile Rule 13 of CE Rules. They were required to have exported the goods within six months from the date of clearance and produce the proof of export. As the proof of export had not been produced within the stipulated period of six months, therefore, proceedings were initiated to recover the duty amount. The assessees contended that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of removal of goods without payment of duty by 100% EOU only after referring the matter to Board of Approval/development Commissioner or after considering the CBEC's order in this regard." 2. Hon'ble CEGAT, New Delhi, in the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi as reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 650 held that "Penalty equivalent to duty amount - Limit fixed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 is the maximum limit and it is not mandatory that in all cases such maximum should be imposed as penalty - Authority is having a discretion to impose lesser penalty." 3. Hon'ble CEGAT, Bangalore in the case of Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad as reported in 2002 (150) E.L.T. 1053 = 2002 (52) RLT 943 held that "Penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner (Appeals), as an Appellate Authority, is vested with all the powers to accept the documents which were also within the department's control. The department is not denying the fact of export of the goods to another EOU. In such a circumstance, the question of confirming demands does not arise. The plea taken by the Revenue that the evidence should have been produced before the original authority is not a correct ground as the Commissioner (Appeals) has the power to accept evidence and scrutinize the case in terms of law. The Commissioner (Appeals) has done a right thing in examining the entire evidence which were not a fresh evidence, but an evidence which was also scrutinized and processed by the department. There is no merit in these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
