TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r claimed the goods manufactured and supplied by M/s. SR Traders but on verification by the Department, there is categorical report of the Asst. Commissioner intimating that the supporting manufacturer is not available at the given address and it is also a fact that the appellant exporter is not able to provide any details or clue of M/s. SR Traders despite opportunities given to them by the Department. In the absence of any such evidence, the Commissioner s conclusion that goods have been procured from the open market by exporter cannot be faulted and accordingly, I uphold the same and hold that demand of Drawback amounting to ₹ 1,92,908/- has rightly been confirmed by the Commissioner and penalty also rightly imposed on the exporter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-III, Ghaziabad intimating that the exporter M/s. Ambition Creations does not exist at the address Chamber No.8, Panchmari Apartment, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad and on the given address a board of Nature Care beauty parlour was found. Similarly, ACCE, Division-VIII, Delhi also intimated that the supporting manufacturer M/s. SR Traders does not exist at the given address and it was found to be residence of Shri Shukla and Shri Suri. Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated against the exporter vide Show Cause Notice dated 23.04.2009, demanding amount of drawback sanctioned to them under Rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties and Drawback Rules, 1995 along with interest and also proposing co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cturers. Therefore, in the absence of any positive evidence, the case against them is not sustainable. He also submits that since the goods were already exported and not available for consideration, the redemption fine cannot be imposed on them. 4. Shri Sanjay Jain, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue points out that the entire drawback pertains to central Excise allocation and the Commissioner has discussed in the impugned order that in case of merchant exporter, the benefit of All Industry Rates of Drawback is restricted to customs allocation only and in absence of any proof that CENVAT credit was not availed, the Commissioner has rightly disallowed the drawback and ordered confiscation of the goods. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. In the absence of any such evidence, the Commissioners conclusion that goods have been procured from the open market by exporter cannot be faulted and accordingly, I uphold the same and hold that demand of Drawback amounting to Rs.1,92,908/- has rightly been confirmed by the Commissioner and penalty also rightly imposed on the exporter. 6. However, I find that the Commissioner has ordered for the confiscation of the goods which were already exported and are not available for confiscation. I agree with the contention of the Ld. Advocate of the exporter that since the goods are not available, no redemption fine can be imposed on them. Accordingly, I set aside the redemption fine imposed by the Commissioner in the impugned order. 7. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
