9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t (AR), for respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. BPS(370)154/2004 dated 14.10.2004. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice. Since the appeal is of 2005, we take up the same for disposal. 3. Heard the learned departmental representative. 4. It is the case of the Revenue that the appellant is required to discharge the duty liability on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l representative would rely upon the statements of objections and reasons of the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958 and also Section 7 and Section 8 of the said Act, submits that any sugar which is exported needs to be done through export agency. He would also draw our attention to the fact that the appellant was allotted a quota for export which they are supposed to deliver to the export agen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and how the adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority came to a conclusion that the appellant has not delivered the sugar meant for export to such export agency. On a specific query from the Bench as to whether there was any evidence or statements on record that the sugar was not delivered to the export agency, the learned departmental representative submits that one of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
