9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... G.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER Revenue has filed these appeals against Order-in-Appeal No. 332-333/CE/CHD/2005, dated 14-[* *]-2005 which set aside the Orders-in-Original No. 5/DC/MCG/2005 and 6/DC/MCG/2005 both, dated 16-6-2005 in terms of which the duty demands of Rs. 2,55,828/- and Rs. 1,43,010/- were confirmed along with penalties of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 75,000/- respectivel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e inapplicability of Notification No. 9/2003 to the exported goods, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not legal and proper. The respondents have contended that the concessional rate of duty should be applicable in case of export also and that in any case it is not a case of penalty as whatever duty they paid was refundable to them. 3. We have considered the facts and the submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be in terms of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 read with any exemption notification and/or Central Excise Rules. 4. Thus, as the Notification No. 9/2003-C.E., is clearly not applicable, even as per the above-quoted para of the Central Excise Manual, the rate of duty on the impugned exported goods cannot be in accordance with the Notification No. 9/2003-C.E., as that Notification is applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
