9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the commissioner in his order has also admitted that the documents have been filed and the facts of export have been accepted. The department's grievance is that the superintendent of Central Excise did not attend the export. It was not required. The appellant was governed by self removal procedure and to such cases Rule 173-0 was applied. It was the appellant's option to export under supervision of either the Excise authorities or the Customs Authorities. The commissioner is competent to relax the procedural provision under Rule 12/13 or the Central Excise rules, 1944. In the instant case, it was incumbent upon the Commissioner to grant relaxation from the procedure from the procedural provisions. This Tribunal has observed that when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant was required to submit a statement in Annexure 19 along with the original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 with due certification of export by the Customs Authorities for acceptance of the same by the Bond Accepting Authority. It was revealed that instead of exporting the goods in their original packed condition, the appellant used the same as inputs along with the other materials, Solvents and emulsifier materials etc. in the manufacturer of alide goods. The goods ultimately exported in the later on undertaken instead of bond. The appellant admitted that the goods as received on the strength of CT-I certificates were not exported in their original packed condition but the same were used as raw materials for tpe manufacture of dif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the appellant submits that it is not demanded that the goods procured on the strength of CT-1 certificate has ultimately exported as substantially condition of the notification has been complied with. In that circumstances, the appellant has complied the condition of the notification. To support this contention he relied in the decision of I.O.C Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-II reported in 2004 (178) ELT 834 (Tri. Kolkata). 4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submits that the appellant has not complied with condition of the said Notification, therefore, he is not entitled for the benefit of the said notification. He relied on the decision on the Eagle Flask Industries Limited reported in 2004 (171) ELT 296 (SC) and A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that circumstances, on the decisions of IOC Ltd (Supra) is applicable to the facts of this case wherein this tribunal observed that the commissioner in his order has also admitted that the documents have been filed and the facts of export have been accepted. The department's grievance is that the superintendent of Central Excise did not attend the export. It was not required. The appellant was governed by self removal procedure and to such cases Rule 173-0 was applied. It was the appellant's option to export under supervision of either the Excise authorities or the Customs Authorities. The commissioner is competent to relax the procedural provision under Rule 12/13 or the Central Excise rules, 1944. In the instant case, it was incu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
