9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at arise for consideration are that the appellants made a request for remission of duty against a consignment of pharmaceutical product involving duty of Rs. 1,99,347.52 on the ground that the order for the consignment cleared under ARE-1 No. 052/2004-05 dated 7-2-2005 from their factory, was cancelled by their customer and returned back on 30-6-2005. The remission application was on the ground th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r export under Bond, but could not be exported as those were found unfit for consumption. He submits that the provision of Rule 4(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 will apply in this case and the very same section and very same rule was interpreted by the Tribunal in the case of Kuntal Granites Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore reported in 2007 (215) E.L.T. 515 (Tri-Bang) and the issue is squarely covered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port due to quality problem. It is also undisputed that the appellants received back the goods in their factory premises and such receipt was declared by the appellants to the department. On this factual position, it has been noted, that though the goods were removed earlier for the export purpose, the same could not be presented before the customs officers. If that be so, the ratio of the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the place of removal is the premised from where excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory. In the present case, the goods were exported and when export documents are presented to the customs office, then that is the place of removal as per Section 5 of C.E. Act. The same finding has been rendered by this Bench in the case of Koleman India Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Bangalore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
