9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the order dated 7-2-2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-I have been rejected. 2. The proceedings have a chequered history. The petitioner firm M/s. Avni Dresses was a manufacturer of ready-made garments and had filed declaration under Notification No. 36/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 read with Board's Circular No. 705/21/2003-CX, dated 8-4-2003 claiming simplified procedure for exempted units in respect of clearance of textile goods for export through merchant exporters. The petitioner firm had claimed necessary exemption under Notification No. 34/2003-C.E., dated 30-4-2003 as amended for clearance of goods without payment of duty for the year 2003-04. Returns were accordingly filed in An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riginal Authority to decide the issue afresh by taking into account the order of CESTAT in the case of Merry v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II reported in 2008 (226) E.L.T. 422 (T-Mum). On remand the Original Authority by an order-in-original dated 10-5-2010 dropped the proceedings against the petitioner under the show cause notice dated 28-12-2004. Being aggrieved by the said order-in-original dated 10-5-2010 the Department had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) by an order dated 7-2-2011 held that the petitioner failed to establish that the goods cleared under the invoices to the various merchant exporters had actually been exported. The Commissioner (Appeals) accordingly allowed the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant him hearing in Mumbai be considered. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supports the order on merits and submits that the petition does not call for any interference. 4. Having considered the chequered history of the case as also the fact that the earlier proceedings against the petitioner were dropped, we are of the opinion that the Revisionary Authority ought to have granted a personal hearing to the petitioner and more particularly when letters for such request were written by partner of the petitioner-firm seeking indulgence on the ground that he being cancer patient, the Revisionary Authority ought not to have proceeded to pass an ex parte order. We are therefore of the opinion that it is in the interest of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
