9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand of duty of Rs. 82,30,379/- has been confirmed against the appellant no. 1 along with interest and penalties on all the appellants have been imposed. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant no. 1 was manufacturer of readymade garments which became excisable with effect from 01.03.2011. The appellant applied for registration on 28.03.2011 and thereafter certain documents were asked from the appellant for submission thereof. But in terms of para 3.3 of Government of India letter No. DOF No. B-1/3/2011-TRU, New Delhi dated 25.03.2011, the appellant filed a letter on 13.06.2011 for clarification as to whether they are required for registration in view of the fact that estimated domestic sale in the Financial Year 2011-12 would be R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... companies without payment of CE duty for export and such clearance were not made under cover of invoices under Rule 11 of the CE Rules, 2002 and by mis-declaring that the impugned goods were cleared under LUT No. 23/UT-1/Joka/2011-12 valid upto 03.11.2012 in which the date of issue of the LUT was not willfully mentioned, however, the same was actually issued only on 04.11.2011. Further, the letters, invoices, packing lists were signed by the co-appellants that being a Star Export House the appellant ought to have been completely aware of the CE law and procedure. But they did not complete the formalities. Therefore, a Show Cause Notice was issued. 6. The matter was adjudicated and the demand for April, 2011 to October, 2011 was confirmed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erence has been made that the goods manufactured by the appellant in their factory were cleared during the period April, 2011 to October, 2011 without payment of duty of excise for export were diverted for home consumption and submitted the documents as proof of export in respect of goods procured from other sources. On the basis of these observations, the demand has been confirmed. It is his contention that all the allegations against the appellant on the basis of conjecture and surmises only and void of any material proof. 10. He also submitted that the average Drawback benefit in respect of goods procured from market and subsequently exported comes to around 3% to 4% whereas in case of goods manufactured in our own factory and then expo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appellant has cleared goods manufactured in their factory in domestic market and procured goods for export from other sources. Neither any enquiry was made to that effect from the domestic market where the goods have been allegedly sold and from where the goods have been procured for export. 16. Moreover, if manufactured goods were sold by the appellant they are entitled for drawback claim at the rate of 7% to 8% and if goods are procured from outside market they are entitled for draw back claim of 3-4%. As appellant is a manufacturer of goods, there is no sense that the manufactured goods will be cleared in domestic market and from the domestic market appellant will procure goods for export. The allegation made against the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
