TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore they are taken-up together. Vide relevant stay applications, appellants have requested for waiver and stay on the ground that the matter is already covered by a number of judgments in their favour. 2. Heard Shri M. Chidananda Rao, ld. Consultant for appellants and Shri S. Kannan, ld. JDR for respondents. 3. Ld. Consultant submits that the simple issue for consideration is that the appellants who are a small scale industry and therefore did not have the requisite secretarial paraphernalia to clear certain goods for export, though they had placed clear proof including Shipping Bills showing that entire goods so cleared had been exported, yet the ld. Commissioner in the order impugned has confirmed the duty and imposed penalties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 1999 (111) E.L.T. 257 this Bench has held that when substantive conditions having been fulfilled exemption not deniable for the inconsequentional procedural condition. 5. In view of the above, he prays that the orders impugned may be quashed and relief granted. 6. Ld. JDR submits that a perusal of the order-in-original would show that there is no clear findings in both these orders as to whether the goods were actually exported out of India and that the description and the quantity of the goods so actually exported was the same as those which were cleared from the factory gate. He submits that the orders merely note that the appellants had cleared the goods for export. Whether these were exported or not is not available in the finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed AR4 procedure and the execution of the bond. They take shelter under Board s circular dt. 20-5-1996 noted above and submit that in view of the liberalized procedure prescribed therein, no penalty is imposable. 10. Ld. JDR on the other submits that the orders-in-original have not categorically and unequivocally recorded the findings to the effect that the goods so cleared by the appellants were in fact actually exported out side India. 11. Ld. Consultant submits that he had already led proof in the form of numerous documents including Shipping Bill and that the exporter in these shipping bills was the appellant and not a third party. 12. We find great force in the submission of the ld. JDR that it is necessary in the first instan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
