9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the exemption while the manufacturer is held liable for duty. It is only by disallowance of the entitlement that the appellant can be held liable to duty on the goods cleared by them - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1231/2006 - A/85924/17/EB - Dated:- 20-2-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Sachin Chitnis, Advocate for the appellant Shri V K Shastri, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent Per: C J Mathew: M/s Maharashtra Seamless Ltd challenges order-in-appeal no. AT/6/RGD/2006 dated 12 th January 2006 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-II which upheld the demand of ₹ 36,671/- along with interest thereo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n signed by the appellant and then issued by the jurisdictional Central Excise authority at the end of M/s. BCML to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise-V, Akurdi, Pune, who has jurisdiction over the appellants. The Annexure clearly grants exemption to fuel and ash handling system used for the specified purpose of Non-Conventional renewable source Bagasse/Biomass based Cogeneration Plant. In the Annexure the appellant undertakes to follow the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001. The jurisdictional Central Excise Officer has certified that the appellants have executed bond for ₹ 45,00,000/- (Rupees forty-five lakhs only). The appellants have dispatched th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xure-I is proposed to be cancelled. This Annexure-I allowed the party to clear the goods without payment of duty. The ld. Consultant have relied on the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Madurai Power Corpn. (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commr. of C. Ex. Madurai-I [2008 (229) E.L.T. 521 (Mad.)]. The judgment dealt with a case where show cause notices were issued without challenging the validity of Annexure or without cancellation of the Annexure. It was held by the Hon ble High Court of Madras: In our opinion, there is no nexus between Section 11A and Section 35E. Section 11A does not indicate that the Legislature intended to override Section 35E. Both sections have to be read harmoniously. In the present case, Annexure-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt authority, who accepts the proof of export and gives the certificate. The order of the Assistant Collector (Refund) in the Maritime Collector s office was not challenged before the Collector (Appeals) by the Deptt. and hence it has become final and cannot, on his own, be set aside or ignored by the Collector (Appeals). Only if an appeal had been filed by the Department, the Collector (Appeals) could have gone into the question of legality of the order of the Asstt. Collector (Refund) in Maritime Collector s office. When the competent authority has accepted that the entire quantity removed has been exported and the shortage is to be condoned, he cannot have, on his own, disregarded that order. In view of this, the demand either on the exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
