TMI Blog1988 (2) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncerned found that the appellant had manufactured corrugated box falling under T.I. 68 without obtaining any Central Excise Licence and had also exported corrugated box to Nepal and Bhutan without payment of Central Excise duty and further without issuing the gate pass or observing the other provisions of law. As a sequence thereof a show cause notice calling upon the appellant to show cause why duty amounting to Rs. 33,370.91 be not demanded on the goods exported to Nepal and Bhutan and penalty be not imposed, was issued. In reply it was contended that the goods manufactured by the appellant have since been classified under T.I. 68, as such are exempted from payment of duty in pursuance of Notification No. 105/80 dated 19-6-1980 read with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rances from the factory was for home consumption and not otherwise. In the process he submitted that the adjudicating authority went wrong in holding that the sale made to the respective buyers i.e. to say, Nepal and Bhutan was not for home consumption. While elaborating his arguments he further submitted that the goods were removed from the factory of the appellant to their own godowns and from these godowns goods were sold to the respective buyers belonging to Nepal and Bhutan on orders as and when received. Thus the appellants never directly exported the goods to Nepal or Bhutan. The goods were cleared to Nepal and Bhutan from the premises, which was separate and situated within the country, but outside the factory of production. Shri Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed or manufactured in the taxing country and intended for home consumption. In the instant case from the photocopies of the orders etc. placed with the appellant by the merchants (buyers) of Nepal and Bhutan we find that the orders were placed with the appellants at their official address and the goods were exported directly to the merchants of Nepal and Bhutan as per orders stated above. Thus the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant never exported the goods direct to Bhutan and Nepal cannot be accepted. Even otherwise if according to the appellant the goods were cleared from the factory to their godown and then from these godowns to Nepal and Bhutan directly it cannot be said that the goods were cleared fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
