TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, when goods are exported to Nepal in view of Notification No. 20/2004-CE(NT) and accordingly there is no scope for a third alternative with the appellant seeking refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1994 by fitting the shipping bills filed and assessments completed. Appellant has also not challenged the assessment made in the shipping bills. It is also not the case of the appellant that it was prevented from opting benefit under Nofification No. 45/2001-CE(NT). - order passed by the first appellate authority is legally correct and there is no reason to interfere with order - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No. : E/1252/2008-SM - ORDER No. A/11115/2015 - Dated:- 27-7-2015 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification No. 20/2004-CE(NT) on payment of duty and the second is prescribed under Notification No. 45/2001-CE(NT) under Bond without payment of duty. Both the notifications are conditional notifications subject to fulfilling certain procedures and conditions Appellant opted to pay duty under Notification No. 20/2004-CE(NT). After the export of goods to Nepal, appellant wanted to avail the benefit of Notification No. 45/2001-CE(NT) by arguing that duty was not required to be paid. Appellant is relying upon the Case Law of CCE Ludhiana Vs. Vardhman Spinning and General Mills (Supra). This Case Law has relied upon the Apex Courts decision in the case of Share Medical Care Vs. UOI [2007 (209) E.L.T. 321(S.C.)]. The facts and issue involved in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ially the request was made by the appellant for exemption under para 2 of the Notification and accordingly, the institution was granted such exemption. It was, therefore, not open to apply for exemption under para 3 of the table of the exemption notification and the application was liable to be rejected. (6) Being aggrieved by the above order passed by the Deputy Director General (Medical), the appellant-Society filed the above petitions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court also dismissed the petitions observing that it was not in dispute that the appellant (petitioner) claimed exemption in respect of hospital equipments and was allowed on the basis of its prayer under category para 2 of the table. The High Court noted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Share Medical Care Vs. UOI (Supra). In the present appeal before this bench alternative notification could be admissible to the appellant only subject to execution of a bond before clearance of the goods and also by fulfilling other condition of Notification No. 45/2001-CE(NT). Further Apex Courts decision in the case of Share Medical Care Vs. UOI (Supra) was technically a remand order for the Respondent to reconsider appellants case. Respectfully differing with the views expressed by CESTAT Delhi, in the case of CCE Ludhiana Vs. Vardhman Spinning and General Mills (Supra), I hold that there are only two procedures during export of goods to Nepal under Notification No. 20/2004-CE(NT) and Notification No. 45/2001-CE(NT). Option was availab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
