TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is stated that the Licensing authority may have the power to condone the non-fulfilment of condition relating to declaration of job workers not declared in the application. We find that the Licensing authority certified the fulfillment of export obligation and in this context, the submission of the learned Advocate that the Policy permitted job work is required for examination. In our considered view, the stand taken by the appellant that they manufactured the goods through their job worker and permitted by Policy is required to be verified and, thereafter, it should be decided as to whether they are eligible to get benefit under the notification - matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. C/00259/2004 - - - Dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absolutely no bearing on the question to be decided by the Customs Department under Section 111(o) of the Customs Department. This aspect was not considered by the CESTAT. 29. We are, therefore, of the view that the CESTAT was not justified in setting aside the order passed by the Customs Department. 30. Since the issue was not considered on merits by the CESTAT, we are of the view that the matter requires fresh consideration by CESTAT. 31. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 4 th November, 2004 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the CESTAT for fresh consideration. The CESTAT is directed to consider the matter on merits and as per law. 2. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorised Representative submits that they have not declared the job workers name in licence. It is also contended that they have a manufacturing unit and it was found that has no manufacturing facility in their premises and, therefore, the arguments raised by the learned Advocate has no relevance. He also submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi Vs Hari Chand Shri Gopal reported in 2010 (260) E.L.T.3 (S.C.) held that benefit of exemption Notification would be denied on violation of the conditions in the Notification. He also referred to paras 7.3 and 7.4 of the Handbook of Procedures, wherein it is stated that the manufacturer-exporter is required to maintain a proper account of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
