TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this appeal the appellants have challenged the correctness of the impugned order-in-original, dated 19-9-2002 vide which the Commissioner had confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 22,84,468/- with equal amount of penalty payable and interest against them. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods such as spanners, wrecking bars, etc. On the scrutiny of their RT-12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were exempt from following AR-4 procedure in view of the Board s Circular No. 212/46/96-CX, dated 20-5-96. But the adjudicating authority did not accept their version and passed the impugned order. 3. We have heard both sides. We find that the appellants have taken a specific plea that they are SSI Unit and the value of their clearances for home consumption were within the exemption limit and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel has requested during the course of the arguments that the matter may be sent back and the appellants will be able to furnish proof and the co-relation of the goods exported by them and would also furnish evidence to show that their clearances for home consumption had not exceeded the exemption limit. In our view, this request of the learned Counsel deserves to be acceded to, as if they are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
