9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n terms of Section 3(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and it is not necessary to go to proviso at all – Further it was also submitted during course of hearing that exports were made in name of appellants only – View has also been taken that clearances to EOUs cannot be considered as exports which again is contrary to provisions of law – Once order is set aside, it is non est and further there is no indication in Commissioner’s order that submissions relating to exports made and in respect of raw materials imported after 2000 have been dealt with in earlier order – In such situation, we consider that Commissioner should consider matter once again and therefore remand matter with request to reexamine all matters afresh – Therefore impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the benefit of Notification No.8/97-CE dt. 1.3.97 which was claimed by the assessee. The condition of the said notification is that if goods cleared to DTA are manufactured out of indigenous inputs, then Central Excise duty is payable, as per Central Excise Tariff. This submission, in our view, is not considered by the Adjudicating Authority. It is also seen from the records that the appellant had not appeared before the Adjudicating Authority despite innumerable opportunities. We are not happy with this situation. Since the issue involved in this case being demand of duty which needs a relook by lower authority on factual matrix, in the interest of justice, we hold that the impugned order needs to be set aside and the matter to be heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is fact. He also submits that there was no import of raw materials at all prior to 2000 whereas there is an observation that appellants had imported goods from 1994-95 onwards which shows that there is no proper appreciation of facts. 4. The learned AR would submit that there is nothing wrong in the action taken by the Commissioner while undertaking de novo proceedings. He submits that the Tribunal remand order required him to examine the fulfillment of conditions in the Notification No.8/97 only and nothing else. He also submits that there is nothing wrong that the Commissioner taking a view that he does not have to go into reasons again since he agrees with the same. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessary to go to the proviso at all. In this case also, the Department s case is that the conditions under Notification No.8/97 have not been fulfilled and Development Commissioner s permission was not obtained and procedures were not followed. 6. As regards imported raw materials, the claim of the appellants has been rejected on the ground that the request to remove the shrimps for processing to job workers and export the same from the job workers premises by the appellant had been rejected by the Additional Commissioner and therefore the clearances made to the job workers which were in turn exported cannot be considered as fulfillment of obligations cast on the appellant at all. We consider that this aspect needs much more detailed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
