9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ible currency in Indian rupee as specified in the said notification. The situation in the instant issue was not different from that or the said past exports. Once exports were admittedly made and received by the project authority, there cannot be any demand of Central Excise duties. The duty on the goods can be demanded only if the goods have not been exported out of India within the stipulated period but, there is no such allegation in the demand notices. In view of this, demand notices are not sustainable. Therefore, once the remittances of export proceeds were originated from Asian Development Bank, as certified by the Banks at the recipient end, the demand notices were unfounded. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 298/HWH/CE/2017-18 dt.27.11.2017 Although, there were number of exports being made in the said project in the past under different Bonds with securities, which were cancelled and released respectively on finalization of assessments based on proof of exports and remittances received thereto yet, aforementioned two notices for demand of CE duties though covered under a single Bond No. 06/General Bond (Security/HWD-I/22.04.2014 were confirmed, as mentioned supra. Incidentally, both cases of exports were made under two separate proceedings though goods were exported to the project under a single bond, as mentioned above. In the case of allegation of not covering the project in the said notification, the Ld. Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admittedly made and payments were received as per the conditions and safeguards laid down in the said notification, imposition of penalty were unwarranted. He further contended that when all other assessments were finalized in so far as exports made to the said project, and Bonds were cancelled releasing securities attached to the said Bonds. Hence, any other action contrary to the finalization of past assessments was not correct. 3. Shri S. S. Chattopadhyay, Ld. A. R. for the respondent, had , however, reiterated the stand of the department and also stated that the issue pertained to infringement of conditions of notification. 4. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the appeal records. 5. I find that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
