9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s found that the charge of non-submission of documents was not an allegation mentioned in the SCN and the Ld. Original Authority and the Ld. Commissioner Appeals cannot travel beyond the allegations made out in the SCN and improve their case. Once the fact of the Export of the goods was not questioned, the confirming of demand along with interest and imposing an equal penalty under sec. 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for a procedural lapse was too harsh and not warranted. The ends of justice will be served by setting aside the fine and penalties imposed by the impugned order - the impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed. - Hon ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar , Member ( Technical ) Shri M. Kannan , Advocate for the Appellant Shri Anoop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods exported without valid LUT for the period from 18.8.2012 to 23.9.2012 along with interest. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed equal penalty under sec. 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by the original authority s order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Madurai and the appellate Commissioner vide the impugned order upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 3. I have heard learned counsel Shri M. Kannan for the appellant and Shri Anoop Singh, learned Joint Commissioner (AR) for the respondent. 3.1 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no allegation of non-export of goods or diversion of goods in the show cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o mandatory penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He prayed that the Tribunal be pleased to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief. 3.2 The learned AR reiterated the findings in the OIO and the impugned order and stated that the proof of export had still not been accepted and are not beyond doubt/ suspicion. The ARE-I was also not submitted in time. He prayed that the appeal may be rejected. 4. I have heard the rival parties and perused the records. I find that the SCN has not questioned the actual export of the goods but only the non-submission of the LUT for the relevant period. Post the export, certain documents are stated to have not been furnished by the appellant for verificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
