9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the appellants on the basis of a finding that the appellants had contravened Central Excise Rules. 2.I have carefully examined the records and heard both sides. The appellants had, during 1997-1998, exported certain quantities of final products without executing bond or following AR-4 procedure under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules. The Customs Authorities wanted to demand the duty of exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4.Learned Consultant Shri C. Chidananda Rao submits that the only finding of the Commissioner for the purpose of imposing penalties on the appellants is that they have contravened the AR-4 procedure envisaged under Rule 13 of Central Excise Rules. He submits that this finding cannot be sustained in the light of the Board's Circular No. 212/46/96 C. Ex. dated 20-5-96. Learned Consultant refers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d down in para 2 of the circular. As per such scheme, the relaxed procedure is applicable only to those Small Scale Manufacturers who are not able to maintain statutory records or to submit returns for want of sufficient infra-structure and man power. He submits that the present appellants do not belong to that category of small scale manufacturers and hence the relaxed procedure laid down by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be followed by "the manufacturers having value of clearances for home consumption within exemption limit and who are availing full exemption". In my view, it is not necessary to go beyond the scope of para-4 for the purpose of deciding the question before me. There is no dispute in these cases that the appellants belong to the category of manufacturers envisaged in para-4 of the circular. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing : 1. GCT Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 74 (held : penalty not imposable in the absence of any duty demand). 2. LML. Ltd., v. CCE, New Delhi - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 480 (held : Penalty not imposable when duty demand does not survive). 3. Salzer Controls Ltd. Others v. CCE, Chennai - 2001 (95) ECR 312 (held : As no duty was chargeable on the goods manufactured for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
