TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said Notification has been denied by the Revenue on the ground that the said Art Board (Card Board) could not be utilised by the appellants herein in the manufacture of their export product for which the value-based Advance Licence was issued and under which licence, the benefit of the said Notification is required to be made applicable. The basis of this allegation of the Department was a market-enquiry referred to in the Commissioner s Order dated 6-5-1994. That Order came up for examination in an appeal filed by the appellants herein and the Tribunal directed vide Order No. A-231/CAL/1995, dated 6-2-1995 that, since the Commissioner had arrived at his conclusion of not extending the benefit of the said Notification to the goods in q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he export product and are covered by the description of inputs in the licence. He submits that no evidence has been produced by the Revenue to that effect, because if the elusive market-enquiry is kept aside that the material imported could not be used in the export product i.e. Packet Tea. In these circumstances, he submits that the impugned order be set aside and the benefit of the notification in question be extended. 2. Opposing the contentions, learned JDR, Shri R.K. Roy for the respondent Commissioner points out that the appellants herein had agreed to clear the goods vide their letters dated 2-11-1993 and 8-11-1993 on payment of duty. It has also been found by the adjudicating authority that even before issuance of the show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not the same one as imported. We are of the view that the Revenue s case has been placed on the basis of the allegations made in the show cause notice in the first instance. Revenue cannot be allowed to keep on improving its case without the specific direction of the Tribunal in the earlier order passed by it. Reliance placed by the learned adjudicating authority on the two letters is, therefore, totally unwarranted. We, further, observe that it is irrelevant for the Commissioner to observe that the imported goods were not used in the export product. It is apparent from the clarification relied upon by the learned Consultant for the appellants herein, that this is not the intention behind the Explanation (iii) of the Notification No. 203/92 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
