9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to interfere with impugned order - Decided against assessee. - Writ Tax No. - 875 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 28-4-2014 - Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,JJ. For the Petitioner : Udit Chandra For the Respondent : A. S. G. I. ,Ashok Singh ORDER 1. Heard Sri Udit Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddharth Shukla, Advocate for respondents. 2. The petitioner claimed rebate of Central Excise Duty on alleged export of certain goods. The Assistant Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Agra (hereinafter referred to as the A.C., C.C.E. ) issued show cause notice dated 11.11.2005 stating that on scrutiny of petitioner's rebate claim it has been found that description of goods in invoice No. 27 dated 19.06. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise and others, 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 552; Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi Vs. M/s Hari Chand Shri Gopal and others, 2011 AIR SCW 1119; and, Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2007(11) SCC 447. 5. However, I find that so far as description of goods do not tally in invoice no. 27 and ARE-I are concerned, it was mentioned in show cause notice and has consistently been found correct. The petitioner could not give any explanation in this regard. Similarly, for the purpose of difference of weights, the details have been discussed in the order of A.C., C.C.E. and petitioner got opportunity even before Appellate Authority but could not explain the same satisfactorily. The difference could not be explaine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ues were never raised commencing from show cause notice, initial order passed by Assessing Authority and in the first appeal. It is in these circumstances, the Court observed that department cannot travel beyond the show cause notice and even in the grounds of appeal these points are not taken but that is not the case herein. 10. Similar was the case in Formica India Division Vs. Collector of Central Excise (supra) where the Revenue intended to raise an issue for the first time before High Court which was held impermissible by Apex Court. Similarly, other decisions are also do not help petitioner, in my view, the issue raised in this matter. 11. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. 12. The wri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
