TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chandershekharan, Sr. Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Krishna A. Mishra, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : K.D. Mankar, Member (T)]. The appellants are a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of shoe components (soles and heels). They had effected certain clearances to a domestic unit without payment of duty. In the show cause notice issued to them, it was alleged that, they ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods (shoes) which were subsequently exported. 2. The Commissioner after taking note of the above facts, however, held that the clearances under reference (involved in the instant appeal), were without the cover of CT-2 and without following Chapter X Procedure. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected. The appellants are contesting the findings in the impugned order. 3. Heard both sides. 4. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that, the Tribunal had already considered this aspect in respect of the very same appellants and passed order in their favour, after holding that such removals to a domestic customer for ultimate export would not be liable to duty. The judgment is reported in 2003 (154) E.L.T. 651 (Tri. - Del.). Therefore, following the said judgment the instant appeal also deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
