9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled on 30.12.2013 as soon as said employee resumed his duty. The delay caused is nothing but procedural irregularity. The Appellant is not a habitual offender as there has been no delay in filing the application prior to aforesaid period (December, 2013) or post to the aforesaid period - penalty cannot be levied. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/52645/2015-EX [SM] - Final Order No.70259/2018 - Dated:- 22-1-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Hrishikesh (Advocate), for Appellant Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The above stated appeal is arising out of impugned Order-in-Appeal No.NOI/EXCUS/001/APP/402/2014-15 date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the application that the goods have been sealed in his presence, and shall send the original and duplicate copies of the application along with the goods at the place of export, and shall send the triplicate and quadruplicate copies of the application to the Superintendent or Inspector of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory, warehouse, any such approved premises within twenty four hours of removal of the goods. 4. Appellant is regularly filing the application within 24 hours of the removal of goods with the concerned Superintendent/Inspector of Central Excise. However, in the month of December, 2013, 16 applications (ARE-1) were filed beyond the period of 24 hours. As a result, 16 Show Cause Notices were issued to Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 28-05-2014 7 101/17-12-13 18-12-2013 30-12-2013 C. No. V(15)Adj/SCN/SMC/N-IV/367/2014/4729 dated 28-05-2014 8 100/17-12-13 18-12-2013 30-12-2013 C. No. V(15)Adj/SCN/SMC/N-IV/366/2014/4733 dated 28-05-2014 9 105/21-12-13 23-12-2013 30-12-2013 C. No. V(15)Adj/SCN/SMC/N-IV/374/2014/4737 dated 28-05-2014 10 109/24-12-13 26-12-2013 30-12-2013 C. No. V(15)Adj/SCN/SMC/N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules. Appellant challenged the Order dated 24.09.2014 before Commissioner (Appeals). However, Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal vide impugned Order dated 27.02.2015. Aggrieved by the same, Appellant is before this Tribunal. 5. Heard the Ld. Counsel for Appellant, has basically argued that there is no dispute that Appellant has effected the export and complied with all essential conditions as required under Notification dated 26.06.2001. However, there was delay in submitting ARE-1 Applications before the concerned Superintendent/Inspector of Central Excise in the month of December, 2013 beyond the time period of 24 hours as the concerned employee had met with road accident. However, as soon as the employee-in-charge resumed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
