9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ginal documents before any of the authorities [2006 (10) TMI 334 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] and even in the present appeal, they have failed to submit original documents. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No. E/250/2005 - Final Order No. 40333/2015 - Dated:- 23-3-2015 - Hon ble Shri R. Periasami,J. For the Appellant : Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) For the Respondent : None ORDER This an appeal filed by appellant against Order-in-Appeal No.9/2005-(TRY) (ADK) dt. 20.1.2005. 2. The appeal was listed for hearing on 1.11.2013, 3.1.2014 and again on 13.6.2014. On 13.6.2014, the matter was adjourned as a last chance. In spite of that, none appeared today or is there any appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hence the refund claim cannot be sanctioned on the strength of the consignment note but only as per the invoice prepared under Rule 11 of CER 2002. I find that in 13 invoices as mentioned in the impugned order, the exporter's invoice, shipping bills and let export orders were pre-dated to the date of manufacturer's invoice. The manufacturer of excisable goods are removing goods under rule 11 of CER 2002 and the date mentioned in the invoices by the manufacturer is relevant. The dates in the invoices of the merchant exporter precedes the dates mentioned in the manufacturers invoices and the date of the shipping bill and the date of let export in the shipping bill are not correlating with the date of the manufacturer's invoices. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the manufacturers invoices, it cannot be said that there is a conclusive evidence of payment of duty of excise on the subject goods. Further, the pre-dated invoices produced by the appellants and alleged to have been used for export of the goods can hardly be accepted as evidence of the incidence of duty on the goods having not passed on to the foreign buyer inasmuch as the goods covered by the pre-dated invoices of the exporter cannot be held to be the same as the goods covered by the manufacturers invoices shown to have been issued later. As rightly pointed out by learned SDR, there is no evidence of the goods supplied by the manufacturer having been exported by the appellants. The appellants have even failed to satisfy the substantive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
