9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that:- It is not in dispute that the goods have been exported to the Nepal without following the procedure prescribed under the two aforesaid notifications. The contention of the appellant that this may be treated as a procedural lapse as the export has already been affected to Nepalese importer. This is undisputed the fact that the condition of notification has not been complied - appeal dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2001 and Notification No. 29/2004 dated 6.9.2004. The period involved in this case is from Feb. 2014 to October 2014 involving Central Excise duty to the extent of ₹ 19,68,035/- by way of non-payment of Central Excise duty. 2. The ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant has agreed that it was that the appellant had not followed the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid notification which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that has been prescribed in the aforesaid notification. Having not done so, the benefit claimed by the appellant is not required to be accepted by this Hon'ble Tribunal. He relied upon the decision of CC Import, Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar & Company & Others, CA No. 3327 of 2007 decided on 31st July, 2018, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that the conditions imposed by the notification is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
