9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original regarding the duty demand of Rs. 17,274.34 with penalty of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants cleared Paper Grey Board valued at Rs. 3,45,486.71 to their merchant-exporter, M/s. Auro Sales Corpn. without payment of duty under the provisions of Rule 13(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules. This clearance was made by them unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the correctness of that notice. They denied their liability for payment of duty and maintained that since the Bond B-1 was executed by the merchant-exporter, duty liability, if any, could be enforced against him. The adjudicating authority did not accept the version of the appellants and confirmed the duty demand with penalty, detailed above. The Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the said or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported by that exporter or that the said exporter committed any breach or violation of the terms of the bond. There is also no material to suggest if any action for breach of any provisions of the bond had been initiated or taken against that exporter. The Block Transfer Certificate as even admitted by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, was to be taken by the merchant-exporter and n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods as is evident from the impugned order itself. Therefore, for the minor lapse on the part of the merchant-exporter, the appellants could not be saddled with the duty demand and penalty. 5. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the appeal of the appellants is allowed with consequential relief, if any, permissible under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
