9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exported. Held that:- By following the ratio laid down in the Tribunal's order in the case of M/s. Expos Leather Company Vs. CCE, Chennai [2010 (4) TMI 1112 - CESTAT CHENNAI] as upheld by the jurisdictional High Court, the impugned order imposing fine and penalty is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief - Appeal Nos. C/40037/2015 - Final Order No. 40699 / 2016 - Dated:- 3-5-2016 - SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Ms.Pramila.V, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri. K.P.Muralidharan AC (AR) ORDER Shipping bill was filed for export of goods declared to be finished leather. Two types of leather were declared in shipping bill for export. One described as Goat wax co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... represented by Shri K. P. Muralidharan, A.C.(AR). It is observed from the grounds of appeal that appellants are not contesting CLRI s report but are praying for one more opportunity to reprocess the goods as per requirements. It is also contended by the appellants that in absence of few processes it would not mean that the leather to be exported was not finished leather. It is an admitted position that two processes had not been done on the goods viz., wax coating and finishing coat , and the appellant had cured this deficiency by re-processing these goods. The goods have also been exported. The Tribunal in similar circumstances has set aside the order of confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty, in the case of M/s. Expos Leather ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order of confiscation and imposition of penalty and direct the appellants to carry out the process of protective coating before exporting the goods. The appeal is thus allowed with consequential relief. An appeal by the department before the Hon ble High Court did not yield any favourable result. The relevant portion of the Order of the Hon ble High Court of Madras dated 19.11.2010 in the case of CC (Imports), Chennai Vs. M/s. Expos Leather Company in CMA No. 2937 of 2010 is reproduced as under:- 3. In the above stated background, the Tribunal, by applying its own earlier decisions in more than one case and the one reported in 2000 (119) ELT 656 (Vijayalakshmi Leathers Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, set aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
