9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that on scrutiny of ER-1 returns of M/s. Suman Industries for the month of December, 2007, January, and February, 2008 it observed that they had shown the clearance for Export without payment of duty in their ER-1 return; but they had not submitted triplicate and quadruplicate copies of ARE-1 to Range office within 24 hrs of clearance for export as required under Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 issued under Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Therefore, a Show Cause Notice No. V/Aduj.Ch.90) 15B-30/K-01/2008, dated 11-4-2008 was issued to the applicant, demanding Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,86,412/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with interest under Section 11AB of the said Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y was liable to be imposed on the applicant and the penalty imposed on the applicant deserves to be set aside and quashed. This is particularly in the light of the fact that the applicant has acted bona fide and neither there is any loss of revenue to the exchequer nor there are any allegations of any mala fide on the part of the applicant. 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 19-5-2012, 28-6-2012 and 23-7-2012. Shri B.S. Bilowria, Advocate attended hearing on 23-7-2012 on behalf of the applicant, who reiterated the grounds of revision application. Shri D.C. Hemram, Deputy Commissioner, Mumbai-V attended hearing on 23-7-2012 on behalf of respondent and reiterated the finding in impugned Order-in-Appeal. 6. Government has care ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be accepted. 8. In this regard Government is of the considered opinion that when the above applicable provisions of Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 and the relevant instructions contained in para 5.9 of Chapter 7 of the C.B.E. & C.'s Excise Manual of Supplementary Instruction are read in proper perspective, then it is quite clear that the manufacturer is always liable and responsible to pay duty upon the goods manufactured and cleared by him till the final disposal thereof under any other exemption is confirmed upto the satisfaction of proper officer of jurisdictional Central Excise authorities. Therefore, the applicant's contention to shift the liability to any claimed merchant-exporter is not acceptable. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
