TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 30 lakh clearances during the year 1981-82 and as such were not entitled for exemption under the Notification No. 105/80, dated 19-6-1980 as amended during the financial year 1982-83. As such duty amount of Rs. 52,015.76 was demanded on the respective clearances made as per G.P. 1 No. 4, dated 2-6-1982; G.P. 1 No. 5, dated 13-6-1982 and G.P. 1 No. 6, dated 2-7-1982. (ii) By show cause-notice dated 30-6-1982, it was alleged that they had exceeded the first clearances of Rs. 30 lakhs during the financial year 1981-82 in terms of Notification No. 105/80, dated 19-6-1980 as amended, by Rs. 5,32,609/- in excess of the said limit and hence CED of Rs. 42,608.72 was demanded for the respective clearances made through G.P. 1 No. 10 dated 1-12-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lector to have rejected outright the contentions of the appellants that goods had been exported, merely because AR-4A had not been filed. In that event of the matter, the ld. Collector (Appeals) remanded the case with a direction to consider afresh in the light of the collateral evidence produced by the appellants about the export (emphasis supplied by us) and decide the case afresh. 5. On remand the Asstt. Collector by his order dated 7-12-1984 again rejected the plea of the appellants, despite accepting the evidence of export, on the ground that he did not find any evidence, whatsoever, which can prove beyond doubt, that the goods which were cleared from the factory were the same, which were actually exported outside the country. In tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anded twice by two Collectors (Appeals). The subject matter of first remand had been only to accept the collateral evidence. The Asstt. Collector had accepted the export of the goods but had held that there remained a doubt pertaining to its veracity. The Collector (Appeals) again remanded on a limited ground to accept export documents after verification. The Asstt. Collector for the first time had deviated from the remand orders and had held that it could not be done so in absence of AR 4s. The ld. Advocate took us through the entire evidence, shipping bills, invoices and other documents under the Customs Act and Sales Tax Act and was able to co-relate and point out to precision about the manufacture and export of the goods under the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red. In the first instance on remand, the Asstt. Collector held that there was a export and the documents had to be presented. However, he came to the conclusion that the export might not be pertaining to the goods manufactured by the appellants. On appeal, the Collector held that the Asstt. Collector had failed to co-relate the documents and give any findings and therefore, remand the same for the second time. On remand, the Asstt. Collector has again refused to consider the case and has held that they had not followed the procedure by filing AR 4 at the time of clearance and hence they are not entitled for the benefit of the notification in question. As can be seen from the order of the lower authorities, they were refusing to look into t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
