9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal has been filed by the department directed against the impugned order dated 21.12.2015 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has upheld the Order-in-Original and dismissed the appeal of the department. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant had cleared cotton fabrics totally valued at Rs. 1,94,1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-Original dated 25.8.2006. Again on appeal, the Commissioner (A) upheld the Order-in-Original. Aggrieved by the order, assessee filed appeal before CESTAT and the Tribunal vide order dated 23.6.2009 remanded the case to the original authority with a direction to grant the benefit of export on the basis of the documents produced by the assessee, which are statements/certificates issued by the expo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the correctness of the same and he accepted those certificates and statements. The learned Commissioner (A) dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and upheld the Order-in-Original and hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard the learned AR and the learned consultant for the assessee. 4. The learned AR submitted that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A) upholding the Order-in-Original is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the certificates issued by the export houses and those certificates were not being controverted by the Revenue inspite of the opportunities given to them. After considering those certificates and the statements, the original authority has confirmed the demand of Rs. 5,02,717/- with interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act and the same has been upheld by the Commissioner (A) by dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
