9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1029X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 was ruled out - Held that:- Goods were removed by the assessee under Bond with the permission of the Department and then, after processing, the goods were cleared for export; and the final product has been exported. The suggestion as made in this appeal that at each stage, a final product came into existence, neither appears to be in conformity with the record nor seem to have been suggested before the Appellate Commissioner or the Tribunal, Commissioner cannot be faulted in setting aside the order dated 27-4-2005; and the Tribunal has also rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2001 read with the Board's Circular No. 106/17/95-CX., dated 2-3-1995. However, the proceedings were initiated against the assessee on the ground that the procedure followed by them was not in terms of the Notification dated 26-6-2001. The Adjudicating Authority observed that the assessee had not procured excisable goods under the relevant provisions and hence, applicability of the provisions of Rule 19(2) and 19(3) as well as Notification dated 26-6-2001 was ruled out; and, accordingly, a demand of Rs. 3,47,356/- was confirmed under the impugned order dated 27-4-2005. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 27-4-2005, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and contended that clearance of S.S. Flats took place as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ular dated 29-11-2001. Therefore, I find lot of forced in the appellants submission and accordingly the impugned Order-in-Original is set aside." 4. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Appellate Commissioner, the appellant-Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal that has been rejected by the impugned order dated 3-10-2007. The only contention raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal was that proper procedure had not been followed. The learned Member of the Tribunal found no case for interference particularly looked to the fact that, indisputably, the final product had been exported. The learned Member said, - "5. The Revenue in their appeal memo has again reiterated that proper procedure was not followed. However, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not advance their cause as initially the goods were removed without payment of duty. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the orders impugned, we do not find any merit in this appeal. 7. The basic and essential findings on facts as recorded by the Appellate Commissioner and as affirmed by the Tribunal (reproduced hereinabove) leave nothing to doubt and rather make it clear that the goods were removed by the assessee under Bond with the permission of the Department and then, after processing, the goods were cleared for export; and the final product has been exported. The suggestion as made in this appeal that at each stage, a final product came into existence, neither appears to be in conformit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
