2006 (4) TMI 431

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. This is an appeal filed by the department against order of the Commissioner pursuant to review thereof by the Board. 2. There is no representation for the respondents despite notice, nor is there any request of theirs for adjournment. 3. Under the provisions of the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958 (since repealed), it was obligatory for a sugar manufacturer t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s of sugar to the Export Agency during the said period. Even according to the department, the manufacturer had exported through the Agency a larger quantity of sugar than what was fixed as export quota for the above period. The department s appeal memorandum, however, states that they have documentary evidence to show that the quantity of sugar delivered by the party to the Export Agency was less .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ugar was requisitioned by that Agency was delivered to them by the manufacturer and that such quantity was duly exported during the above period. It appears from the department s Memorandum of Appeal that sugar was exported in a quantity larger than the export quantity for the above period. If that be so, Section 7(1) would not get attracted. This provision reads as under:- 7. Levy of additiona .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X