TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the technology keeps improving and any claim made in 2003 is based on the appellants knowledge at the material time. The appellants have argued that in 2006, they come to know the chemicals which can reprocess the said materials and they reprocessed the material. We do not find that there is anything which cannot be taken at face value. The appellants have not only shown the details of clearance of reprocessed materials in export/DTA on payment of duty and Revenue has not challenged that fact. Revenue has only raised the suspicion that the records produced by the appellant are not authenticated. The assertion of the appellant cannot be set aside merely on suspicion. It has not stated by the Revenue at any stage as to what records wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit again. They claimed that the said damaged fabrics were recovered and part of it was exported and other part was cleared on payment of applicable duty in DTA. A demand of duty was raised for the said damaged fabrics asserting that the claim of recovery of fabric was wrong. The original adjudicating authority observed as follows: - I find that the Noticee received raw material under CT-3 without payment of duty under Notification No. 22/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 for manufacture of goods for export. The said Notification lays down a condition that if the goods so manufactured are not exported, then applicable duty on said goods is to be paid. I further find that the Noticee is 100% EOU and as per Notification No. 24/2003-CE dated 31.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14397 mtrs of the said fabrics during the period November, 2006 to February, 2007 and cleared 2922.4 meters of the fabrics to DTA during May, 2007 on payment of duty. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellants seeking to demand duty on 11786.30 mtrs of fabrics on the grounds that it was not possible to verify the correctness of the claim that the goods which have been cleared are re-processed goods. This allegation was based on the fact that no separate record of re-processing was maintained, but the processing of such goods were mentioned in their daily production report. It was alleged that the appellant had not informed the department about the fact that they had lodged an insurance claim to the insurance company stating that the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could do so simultaneously. He claimed that they had processed the entire lot and cleared the same for export and for DTA clearance on payment of duty. He argued that they had informed the Revenue immediately on receipt of the damaged goods in the year 2003 and the fact that they had claimed insurance cannot come in their way to ability of process and clear the damaged goods. He further argued that Notification No. 22/2003-CE relates to duty exemption on inputs purchased for manufacture of goods and not to the impugned goods which are final products. He further argued that it is for Revenue to establish that the damaged goods have indeed been cleared in DTA. He argued that Revenue has wrongly discarded the documents produced by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey reprocessed the material. We do not find that there is anything which cannot be taken at face value. The appellants have not only shown the details of clearance of reprocessed materials in export/DTA on payment of duty and Revenue has not challenged that fact. Revenue has only raised the suspicion that the records produced by the appellant are not authenticated. The assertion of the appellant cannot be set aside merely on suspicion. It has not stated by the Revenue at any stage as to what records were required to be produced that the appellant failed to produce. The appellant s reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in case of Siraj Sons (supra) is of no avail as in view of the decision of Larger Bench in case of Honest Bio-vet (supra) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to export the goods and, in the event of default, to pay duty thereon. I have found no such default' on the part of the appellants inasmuch as the intended export of the granite slabs did not come through on account of accident, which was beyond the control of the party. The very fact that insurance claim was made by them proved this nature of the subject transactions. In the absence of willful default of export of goods by the EOU, the bond was not liable to been formed against them and consequently the above demand of duty was not warranted. Moreover, the appellants could also claim the benefit of Notification No.24/2003-CE dt. 31.3.2003, which came into force on 1.4.2003. This Notification exempted all excisable goods produced or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
