9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gra and is squarely covered by the ruling of Tribunal in the case of Rhoda Textile Private Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur [2003 (9) TMI 489 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] . Accordingly the appellant have not violated the provisions of Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules read with Notification No. 43/2001-CE (NT). The impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief - Appeal No. E/3915/2006-EX (DB) - - - Dated:- 17-11-2015 - Anil Choudhary, Member (J) And C J Mathew, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri B L Narasimhan, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Ajay Kumar (Joint Commissioner) AR ORDER Per Anil Choudhary The appellant IPCL, is in appeal against Order-in-Original dated: 30.8.2006 passed by the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary 2005 and another SCN dated 20/2/2006 was issued for the period March 2005 to November 2005 as it appeared to Revenue that the removal of the goods by IPCL to RIL was not proper and legal. The appellant contested the SCN by filing reply stating therein that they have removed the goods for export as permissible under Rule 19 (2) of Central Excise Rules read with Notification No. 43/2001-CE (NT) and accordingly they are entitled to the exemption. The SCIM's were adjudicated vide the impugned Order-in-Original, confirming the proposed demand of ₹ 6,16,37,450/- and ₹ 3,57,89,491/- and an equal amount of penalty was imposed, observing that the legal requirements under Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules, read with Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing same, that the goods have been transferred by way of sale in transit. The lorry number is also confirmed by the packing slip of the appellant, and further the goods have been removed under form ARE, that is under the Bond for export and the same also contains the endorsement of export by the Customs Department. Thus it is not disputed regarding the fact of export. The appellant further contends that the exemption is with respect to the goods with the condition of being exported, pursuant to further manufacture. As the fact of further manufacture and export is not disputed, the Learned Counsel contends that the Learned Commissioner in confirming the duty have erred and the impugned order is fit to be set aside. He further emphasizes tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The Learned Counsel also relies on the ruling in the case of Resil Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore-I reported in 2009(241) ELT 132 (Tri.-Bang.) wherein the appellant assessee had received inputs on which credit was taken and some of the inputs were removed to 100% EOU/manufacturer exporter under CT-3 certificate. Such material removed by assessee were used by a recipient for the manufacture of final products which were ultimately exported. These facts were not in dispute, the Revenue was insisting the assessee to reverse the input credit taken on the ground that the appellant themselves did not used the inputs for the manufacture of the final products. The assessee admitted, paid the du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
