9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and need not be gone into. - CEA No. 45 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 9-11-2010 - MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. Mr. HPS Ghuman, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the respondent. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This order will dispose of CEA Nos. 45 of 2004 and 96 to 104 of 2010 as in all the appeals common questions are involved. 2. CEA No. 45 of 2004 has been filed by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the Act ), against order dated 18.6.2004 passed by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onditions for grant of exemption. After adjudication vide order-in-original dated 30.10.1999 demand of duty was confirmed and duty free imported goods were confiscated apart from other penal action. The said order was, however, set aside on appeal by the Tribunal holding that Excise Department and Foreign Trade Department could not simultaneously proceed in the matter. It was further held that on merits, there was no violation of the conditions for exemption. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that the Tribunal erred in holding that parallel proceedings by the Excise Department and the Foreign Trade Department could not be initiated. Scope of both the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceptance of export obligation by the DGFT has knocked the bottom out of the charge to the contrary confirmed in the impugned order. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also pointed out that contrary to the findings in the impugned order (that there was no export by PML and that the clearances to their buyers should be taken as domestic sales) the customs authorities are now accepting that the appellant's sales to three parties could be treated as export and that they are only disputing the actual figure of export as found by the DGFT. Reference in this connection has been made to letter dated 24.10.2003 of Asstt. Development Commissioner, Noida and appellant's reply dated 19.12.2003. 5. On merits also, the appellant has contended t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
