9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. RJB/259/ B.II/2000, dt. 4-8-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Deputy Commissioner demanded Rs. 3,23,651/- being the central excise duty involved in respect of various AR4s for which proof of export was not furnished within six months of the date of clearance of the goods from the manufacturer's end for export. The demands we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that excepting two cases, AR4 No. KSIL/Exp/5/1994, dt. 8-12-1994 and Ks 2-2-1995 on which they could not lay their hands on, the proof of export, in respect of all others were submitted. This would show that the proof of export were filed within the prescribed time and the orders passed are wrong. 3.2 That in respect of exports through merchant-exporters, the responsibility is on them and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Sl. No. 14 of Notn. No. 70/93-C.E., dt. 28-2-1993 and Serial Number 2 of the succeeding Notification No. 53/94-C.E., dt. 1-3-1994 and that now the same are covered under sub-heading No. 9017.10 in the tariff itself. Hence the question of payment of duty or for that matter clearances under bond or submission of proof of export did not arise. On this score alone the impugned orders are not sustain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised for the first time now in revision that were not raised before the lower authorities, Govt. would not be averse to remanding the matter to the original authority for decision in accordance to law, as the same has a bearing on the issues raised in the instant revision application. In order to enable him to do so without hindrance both the appellate and original orders are set aside. 5. So o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
