9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n black procured without payment of duty, under Notification No. 43/2001-CE (NT) of procedural and technical infirmities. 2. The facts of the case are that, the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Bi-cycle tyres/Tubes, Auto Tyres/ Tubes and Rubber Sheets etc. The goods manufactured by the appellant were exported as well as cleared for home consumption. The said final products are exempted from payment of duty. The appellant exported the said goods under advance licenses and procured inputs against advance license after fulfilment of export obligation. They exported goods under white shipping bills. They got invalidated advance licenses from jurisdictional DGFT authorities for procurement of goods indigenously. Appellant submitted a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (NT), therefore, appellant has rightly procured carbon black without payment of duty. He submitted that there was only procedural lapse and factum of export of goods is not disputed. In that circumstance, benefit of notification cannot be denied merely on the technical error or typographical error. 5. On the other hand, ld. AR dictated the findings of the impugned order. 6. On hearing the parties, we find that the case of the Revenue is that appellants are not entitled to benefit of exemption notification No. 43/2001- CE (NT) for the goods exported through merchant exporters, as the appellant has not followed ARE-2 procedure. We find that Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001/2002 under which the Notification No. 43/2001-CE (NT) is is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received with the knowledge of the Department, the non-obtaining of L-6 licence or execution of B-8 bond is merely a procedural lapse and no demand of duty is sustainable on the said technical ground." Further, in the case of Collector vs. Friends Enterprises - 1989 (44) ELT A90 (SC) observed as under:- "The Appellate Tribunal in its order in question had held that demand of duty not justified on the ground of procedural lapses if goods were otherwise exempt from duty." We also take note of the fact that this Tribunal in the case of I.O.C. Limited vs. CCE, Calcutta-II - 2004 (178) ELT 834 (Tri. Kolkata) has taken the same view. 7. In view of this observation, we do not find any merit in the impugned orders and the same are set-aside. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
