9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Mr. Umang Srivastava, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ranjan Khanna, DR ORDER PER MR. R.K. SINGH : Appeals are filed against Order-in-Original dated 28.05.2013 in terms of which the impugned goods, i.e., readymade garments, leather goods, etc. valued at Rs. 12,93,50,999.40 were held to be liable to confiscation though were not confiscated as the same were not available and recovery of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s did not contest the allegation that the supporting manufacturers either did not exist or did not manufacture the impugned goods and were mere traders. It pleaded that in an identical set of facts and circumstances in the case of Kultar Export Vs. CC (Export) [2013 (298) ELT 461 (Tri.-Del.)], CESTAT held that when the goods were acquired from the open market, central excise portion of the drawbac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arels Vs. Union of India in W.P.(C) No.2548/2013, dated 03.09.2013, Delhi High Court followed the order in the case of CC Export Vs. Kultar Export (supra) and extended the same relief. 4. Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand stated that CESTAT decision in the case of Kultar Export (supra) is distinguishable in-as-much-as in the present case the appellant had submitted false declarat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that case. The natural corollary of the fact that there were no supporting manufacturers is that the impugned goods were purchased from the traders, i.e., open market as was the case in the case of Kultar Exports (supra). We find that CESTAT in the case of Kultar Exports (supra) has analysed the matter in detail to arrive at a conclusion that even in cases where goods were procured from the open m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to rely on the word used in para 7 of this circular and uphold this demand." Thus observing, CESTAT allowed the assessee's appeal. As noted earlier, the above CESTAT order was upheld by the Delhi High Court which in turn accepted by CBEC. 6. In the light of the analysis above, we find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellants by the judgements of CESTAT in the case of Kult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
