9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3 of the Memorandum of Appeal Nos. 464/83 465/83, the date of service has been mentioned as 21st February, 1983 and 28th February, 1983 respectively. The appellant has filed applications dated 14th December, 1983 for condonation of delay stating therein that the appeals were filed before the Collector (Appeals) on 16th May and 9th May, 1983 respectively. The Collector (Appeals) had returned the said appeals to the appellant on the 31st day of August, 1983 stating that they should file the appeals before the Customs, Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Last Regional Bench, Calcutta. The appellant has also attached with both the appeals the original memorandum of appeals filed with the Collector (Appeals) bearing the receipt stamp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacture of jute bags and different sizes as per buyers choice out of duty paid jute cloth falling under C.E.T. 22A and disposed of the same for home consumption as well as export. The hessian cloth was purchased by the appellant from some other factory who had duly paid the Central Excise duty on the same. The appellant has claimed the duty paid on hessian cloth as rebate. Although the appellant had exported jute bags the appellant is neither in the possession of any Central Excise licence nor the appellant has complied with the formalities under the Central Excise Act. The appellant has also not complied with the formalities as envisaged in Chapter IX of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 while exporting the jute bags. The appellant has file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 185 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He has further pleaded that A.R. 4 and A.R. 4A have to be prepared. A.R. 4 is to be prepared where the examination is in the factory and A.R. 4A is to be prepared where the examination is to be done by the Customs at the port. Whereas in the case of appellant neither A.R. 4 nor A.R. 4A has been prepared. He has also referred to the judgment of this Court in Order No. 220/Cal./83, dated 10-7-1983 in the case of Trade Industries Private Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Shillong. The learned Senior Departmental Representative has also submitted that if the appellant says that he is the manufacturer then he comes under the ambit of Rule 12A. There is no notification to this effect by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant should be dismissed. 6. In reply Shri P.K. Agarwal, Sole Proprietor of the appellant concern has pleaded that since the appellant concern is not registered with the Central Excise Authorities and as such the appellant was not under any legal obligation to furnish A.R. 4 and as such the question of furnishing of A.R. 4 does not arise at all. He has submitted that there is correlation with the goods as the appellant concern had been duly registered with the Jute Commissioner. He has pleaded that the Nos. of G.P. 1 as well as the Nos. of the shipping bills duly tallied with each other and as such there is a complete correlation. He has also pleaded that certificates from the mills are already on record. 7. After hearing both the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
