9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said condition, appellant have no role to play. It is the departmental internal correspondence to ascertain the fact that export is complete or not. For the lapses of the department, appellant cannot be held faulted. Therefore, duty cannot be demanded from the appellant. With these observations, as find that appellant has been able to prove his case of export of the goods to Nepal. Therefore, no duty can be demanded from the appellant and Cenvat Credit cannot be denied. As duty cannot be demanded from the appellant penalties on both the appellants is not imposable. With these terms, impugned order is set aside. Appeals are allowed with consequential relief if any. - Appeal No. E/3133, 3134/2009-EX(SM) - Final Order Nos. A/53404-53405/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 105. He further submits that as with regard to invoice no 99, 100 and 101 the appellant has produced all the documents i.e. the shipping bill, permission of export and BRCs. Therefore, the allegation against the appellant is not sustainable. Consequently impugned proceedings are to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, Ld AR drew my attention to the notification no. 45/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001 to say that the appellant has failed to produce the evidence from the importing country i.e. Nepal that they have received the goods mentioned in the shipping bill. Therefore, appellant has violated the terms of notification and hence the adjudicating authority has rightly demanded duty and denied Cenvat Credit to the appellant. 5. The fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds to Nepal and thereafter shipping bills were filed and goods were presented before the Land custom station in India and the said goods were allowed to be exported to Nepal. Thereafter, appellant has received the payment. BRCs to that effect have also been produced by the appellant. These facts are not in dispute. The only dispute by the Revenue is that the appellant has not fulfilled condition 2(IV) of the Notification cited here in above. I find that as per the condition IV of the said notification the goods were required to be presented before Nepalese custom office and who has to endorse the certificate of the goods received in Nepal and is required directly sent to the officer of the Custom in charge and it is the duty of the custom i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
