9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) ORDER Per P.K. Choudhary None appeared for the appellant. The case was listed for hearing on 16.1.2014, 17.4.2014, 4.12.2014, 16.2.2015, 28.2.2015 and 28.6.2015. Since the appeal relates to the year 2005 we do not find it proper to keep the appeal pending further. Accordingly, after hearing the learned AR for Revenue and based on the records available, we proceed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the appellants by way of denial of DEPB credit which was availed during the period 1997-2002 in respect of the exports made under Notification No. 32/97-Cus. on the ground that the appellants have willfully obtained the DEPB by mis-declaration and that DEPB can be claimed only when inputs which have gone into the manufacture of export products have suffered duty. 4. The learned AR for R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d notification. It was on this basis that the above demand was raised. She relied on the following case laws:- (a) Leather Crafts (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2011 (274) ELT 379 (b) Sierra Trading (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2011 (269) ELT 246 (c) Sravani Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ADG, DRI, Chennai 2010 (252) ELT 19 (AP) 5. After hearing the learned AR and o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the material on record establishes the above fact. Moreover, as pointed by learned AR, the Shipping Bill filed by the assessee do not contain any reference to the imports and value addition in terms of Notification No.32/1997. In this regard, we are not required to consider whether the drawback and DEPB benefit has been correctly allowed or not as the question in this appeal is restricted to consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
