9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1971, 1958, 1853, 1830, 2370, 1918, 1955 & 2024/2005-MUM - Final Order Nos. A/2621-2632/2015-WZB/EB - Dated:- 30-7-2015 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J) and Raju, Member (T) Shri V.B. Gaikwad, Advocate and Deepak V. Marne, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri Ajay Kumar, Jt. Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Anil Choudhary, Member (J)]. - The appellants are in appeal against a common Order-in-Original No. 06/CEX/2005, dated 21-4-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II. 2. Some appellants have requested for adjournment. In view of the batch matter, as the matter being similar and against a common order, we refuse the request for adjournment and take up all the matters for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and with a direction to the Commissioner to verify the status of the Export Agency , hear the appellants on all issues, including the plea that the said Act has been rescinded/repealed and thereafter determine the duty demand as per law and issue a fresh order. 4. The Learned Counsel Shri V.B. Gaikwad for the appellants has taken us to the facts and also through the relevant provisions of the Sugar Export Promotion Act, and Rules made thereunder, Sugar Export Promotion Rules, 1973. The Learned Counsel also points out to the Notification No. GSR 935(E), dated 7-12-1990 by which the Central Government had appointed and authorized the Indian Sugar General Industry Export Import Corporation Ltd. as the Export Agency for the purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of Rule 5 of the Sugar Export Promotion Rules, 1973 have acted suo motu and as such, the whole action is ab initio void and against the provisions of the Sugar Export Promotion Act and the Rules read with the Central Excise Act. 4.2 The Learned Counsel further points out to the certificate issued by the Sugar Export Promotion Corporation Ltd., which is annexed at page 92-97, wherein the Export Corporation have in exercise to their powers under Section 3 of the Sugar Export Promotion Act, certified that the sugar manufacturers-appellants have fulfilled their export quota obligation as directed by the Corporation with respect to the particular export quota orders as listed therein. These certificates pertain to the appellant M/s. Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 5 intimating any failure to deliver export quota by the appellants. On the contrary there is a certificate from it stating that the appellant has fulfilled its export obligation which can be taken to mean that there has been no failure of delivery by the appellants in respect of export quota fixed for them. I also note that the Revenue itself has not challenged the order of the Addl. Commissioner wherein in an identical circumstances, the demand was set aside. As the issue has already been decided by CESTAT in the case of Terna Shetkari SSK cited supra, following the same I allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. Accordingly, we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned order. The appellant w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
