TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ging that out of imported material approx. 8.33 metric tonne was unused in the manufacture of the exported product and demanding duty on this quantity. The notice also alleged contravention of the provision of Section 61 of the Act in that warehoused goods were retained in a warehouse without payment of duty beyond the period specified in the section. After considering the reply, the Assistant Collector of Customs confirmed the demand for duty. On appeal from this order by the importer, the Collector (Appeals) remanded the matter back to the Assistant Collector. He was of the view that the order has been issued without verifying stock is agreed upon by the appellant and the respondent after issue of show cause notice. He desired that the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show that. The Commissioner (Appeals) view that it would not be economic sense for the importer to manufacture and export goods out of locally manufactured raw material completely ignores the fact that the respondent had purchased and kept in the bonded warehouse sizable quantity of such indigenous steel sheets. Advocate for the respondent admitted candidly that using indigenous raw material is economical for the reason that if such goods were utilised for manufacture of export goods they would be entitled for exemption from Central Excise duty. 4. The two main basis for the Commissioner (Appeals) conclusion therefore fails. We shall deal with the third separately in due course. The contention on behalf of the importer that the notice di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raw material. This contention is not acceptable. Firstly, it is not possible merely to presume that what was exported was made out of imported raw material and not locally manufactured raw material. The respondent had stocked both kinds of material in its warehouse when the export took place and the export goods might have been made partly out of them. In that situation, it is up to the respondent to show that they were made out of imported raw material. It is also not possible to accept that the principle of first in first out has to be applied. There is no principle in law or any provision in the notification for application of such a principle. 6. The next contention is that the Assistant Collector does not take into account the veri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
