9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he has said that it cannot be proved that the goods available in the factory are the same as the goods cleared - the appellant did not intimate the return of the goods within 24 hours, the fact remains that they have produced Transport company’s GR and as such no inquiry has been conducted with the transporter - there was a consignment of Kaftans available in the factory which appeared to be covered by the export invoice - the appellant have a prima facie case in their favour - The requirement of pre-deposit of duty demand, interest and penalty waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery stayed - stay granted. - Appeal No. 58494 of 2013 (SM) - Stay Order No. 58825/2013 - Dated:- 6-8-2013 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, J. For the Appellant : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the goods, which has been cleared for export under ARE-1 dated 10/5/11. On this basis, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant for demand of duty of Rs. 1,09,848/- alongwith interest and imposition of penalty, alleging that the goods cleared under ARE-1 was illicitly diverted. The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 17/10/12 confirmed the above-mentioned duty demand alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount. This order of the Assistant Commissioner was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 28/2/13 against which this appeal alongwith stay application has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides in respect of stay application. 3. Shri Mayank Garg, Advocate, the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation by reiterating the findings in the Commissioner (Appeals) s order and pleaded that the appellant did not inform the department regarding return of the goods within 24 hours, as required in terms of the Board instructions, that they are not even in a position to produce the original and duplicate copies of the ARE-1 under which the goods had been cleared for export, that there are discrepancies in the documents original and duplicate copies of the ARE-1 produced by them, that the Range Officer has also not certified that the goods available in the appellant s factory are same as ones which had been cleared under ARE-1 return No. 30/2011-2012 and that in view of these circumstances, the duty demand has been correctly confirmed. He, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
