9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, we take up the appeal. 2. In adjudication of a show-cause notice dt. 25/01/2010 which had mainly demanded an amount of ₹ 31,57,769/- as Central Excise duty and education cesses on goods claimed to have been cleared for export during the period from April 1996 to June 2008, for want of proof of export, the original authority confirmed the said demand along with another minor demand of duty of ₹ 26,376/- against the party and imposed on them equal amount of penalty besides a proposal to levy interest on duty. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the party preferred an appeal to the Commissioner(Appeals) who, for the purpose of considering that appeal on merits, directed the appellant to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olice report to the Range Officer and that the said D3 intimation was duly acknowledged also. It is submitted, on the facts, that no amount of duty should have been demanded in respect of the said goods. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Commissioner(AR) also who has reiterated the findings of the original and first appellate authorities. With regard to ARE1 No.10/97-98 ibid, he submits that the claim of the party was duly considered by the learned Commissioner(Appeals) and a decision was rendered thereon stating valid reasons. It is submitted that no remission of duty was claimed by the party upon receipt of the damaged goods in their factory and that even the above submissions were not made before the original authority. 5. After ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Commissioner(Appeals) considered the plea. He found that no remission of duty had been claimed on the damaged goods and that the goods were not exported either. The exemption from payment of duty on the goods, claimed by the party, was, therefore, declined. We have found nothing wrong with this decision of the Commissioner(Appeals). Therefore, it is made clear that the consignment of goods covered by ARE1 No.10/97-98 would not be part of the subject matter of our remand order and the appellant will be liable to pay duty of excise on the goods. What stands remanded is the dispute pertaining to the remaining 32 ARE1s. Contextually, we observe that the de novo adjudication of the case shall be completed within a reasonable period by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
