9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nothing more is left to the Adjudicating authority to doubt the conduct of the appellant. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority is directed to carry out direction of the Hon’ble High Court in its letter and spirit to conclude the issue following the ratio laid down by the apex court in the case of Union of India Vs Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. Reported (1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ). It is expected that the authority carrying out the direction shall dispose the matter within a month of receipt of this order. - E/40434/2014 - Final Order No.40415/2016 - Dated:- 24-2-2016 - SHRI D.N. PANDA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Petitioner : Shri T. Ramesh, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri B. Balamurugan, AC(AR) ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scretionary power vested in him under proviso Rule 12(1). A perusal of the order-in-original dated 4-9-2001 would disclose that in no part of the order, the Assistant Commissioner has doubted the factum of export of final products carried out by the appellant during the period from May 2000 to March 2001. In fact the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant before him brought to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner, discretionary power vested in him that in the event of factum of export he being satisfied with the goods have been exported even if all or any of the conditions laid down in the notifications were not complied with, theclaim can be sanctioned. Inspite of the appellant having brought thesaid position to the notice of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was stated to have been following the prescribed declaration available to Rule 13. Nevertheless, having regard to the fact that the conditions to be complied with under Notification Nos. 42/94 and 47/94 was in substratum identical and when the factum of export was not in dispute, we are at a loss to understand as to why the Assistant Commissioner failed to exercise the discretionary power vested in him under the proviso to Rule 12(1) while considering the appellant s claim for rebate applied under Rule 12(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules. Therefore, it is not the case of the authority that there was any other lapse or willful omission committed by the appellant in making the claim or that the factum of export was not proved. In this circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities below is nothing but contempt of the decision of Hon ble High Court, for which, they are liable to action. 3. On the other hand, learned DR says that appropriate documents were not furnished by the appellant before the authority below. 4. Heard both sides and perused the record. 5. It is very strange that the authorities below failed to appreciate the distinct fact found by Hon ble court in para 7 of the decision. The Assistant Commissioner has not doubted the factum of export of final products carried out by the appellant during the period from May, 2000 to Mar. 01. It was also noticed in para 8 by Hon ble High Court that it is not the case of the authority that there was any other lapse or willful omission committed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
