9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the present cases, the Excise authorities have initiated action for violation of Notification No.43/2001-CE dt. 26/06/2001 which is not sustainable in law. The demand of duty by the Central Excise authorities for violation of Notification No.93/2004 dt. 10/09/2004 is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1058 to 1068/2009-DB - Final Order No. 20375-20385/2019 - Dated:- 30-4-2019 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI C.J. MATHEW, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Pradyumna G.H. Advocate For the Appellant Shri K. Murali, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG Appellants have filed these 11 appeals directed against the common impugned order dt. 31/08/2009 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has upheld the Orders-in-Original passed by the Asst. commissioner and rejected the appeals of the appellant. Since the issue involved in all the 11 appeals is same, all the 11 appeals have been taken up together for discussion and disposal. The details of all the 11 appeals are given herein below:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion as specified in the said license (both in value and quantity terms) is discharged by exporting resultant product, manufactured in India, which are specified in the said license and in respect of which facility under Rule 18 or Sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 has not been availed. As the DEEC Scheme debars the exporters from procurement of inputs free of duty under sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, the appellants were issued show-cause notices proposing to demand the duty already availed as exemption under Notification No.43/2001-CE(NT) dt. 26/06/2001. The adjudicating authority after following the principles of natural justice has held that as the duty-free goods procured under Notification No.43/2001-CE(NT) dt. 26/06/2001 having been used in the manufacture of final products exported against fulfillment of obligation under Advance License, the Central Excise duty forgone on the goods procured duty-free would become recoverable. Aggrieved by the Order-in-original, appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the same. Hence the present appeals. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter the Department was satisfied that the appellants had fulfilled all the requirements to procure goods without payment of duty under Notification No.43/2001. He also submitted that Notification No.43/2001-CE dt. 26/06/2001 issued under rule 19(2) of the Rules is to be read mutatis mutandis with Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for the Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 and as per the said Rules, the manufacturer who receives such duty-free goods shall consume the subject goods for the intended purpose and shall maintain proper accounts. He also submitted that as per Rule 6 of the said Rules, where the subject goods are not used by the manufacturer for the intended purpose, the manufacturer shall be liable to pay the amount equal to the difference duty leviable on such goods but for the exemption contained therein along with interest and the provisions of Section 11A and Section 11AB of Central Excise Act shall apply for such recovery. He further submitted that the appellants were allowed to procure duty-free goods to be used for manufacture of export goods and the appellant actually used the said goods for manufacture and export of final pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment to deny the benefit of Customs duty exemption and the Customs authorities should initiate action against the appellant but in no case, excise duty could have been demanded because there is no violation of the conditions of the Notification No.43/2001 dt. 26/06/2001. Further he submitted that for violations of customs notification, only the jurisdictional Customs authorities are competent to take action. But in the present case, the excise duty has been demanded without alleging violation of Notification No.43/2001- CE dt. 26/06/2001. It is his further submission that the imposition of penalties under Rule 25 is also not sustainable in law because the conditions for imposition of penalty under Rule 25 are not fulfilled at all in the present case. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellants have procured raw material without payment of duty under Notification No.43/2001-CE dt. 26/06/2001 issued under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. He further submitted that the Advance Authorisation scheme clearly debars the exporters from availing the facilities under Rule 18 or Rule 19(2) of the Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
