9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fabrics) without payment of duty under cover of ARE-2 and submitted a rebate claim of ₹ 43,744/- on 1-9-2004 for excise duty paid on inputs. On scrutiny it was detected by the department that quantity of 471 kgs. of finished goods covered under ARE-2 No. 49/03-04, dated 15-9-2003 was not exported as the related shipping bill Nos. 233587 dated 16-9-03 and 2340284 dated 17-9-03 shows exportation of 890 kgs. and 914 kgs. respectively i.e. in total quantity of 1804 kgs. only which in turn revealed short shipment to the tune of 471 kgs. Both the shipping bills contains the said ARE-2 No. 49/03-04, dated 15-9-2003. The applicant submitted a shipping bill No. 2338588 dated 16-9-03; but neither Part B of the said ARE-2 containing shipping bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty of ₹ 20,781/- under Section 11A of the said Act read with condition of LUT, charged interest at appropriate rate under Section 11AB and imposed a penalty of ₹ 20,781/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Aggrieved by this order-in-original, the applicant filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the appeal. 4. Aggrieved by this order-in-appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application on the following grounds : 4.1 In this connection the applicant stated that there was an omission on the part of the Customs authority contending that out of 2275 kgs. of finished goods 1804 kgs. has been exported under shipping bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut no reference to shipping bills proof of export of goods by way of invoices, bill of lading are sufficient and the demand unsustainable. The applicant claims that the observation of the Tribunal squarely applies to this case and the impugned order passed by the lower authority is not sustainable. 4.3 In respect of imposition of penalty the applicant stated that claim for rebate deserves to be sanctioned and demand of duty, is not sustainable. So the question of imposition of penalty does not arise as contended by the applicant. 5. The case was listed for personal hearing on 16-12-2009, 26-4-2009 and 11-8-2009. Nobody appeared on behalf of the applicant. 6. Govt. has considered written submissions and relevant case record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
