TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 29.1.2003, involving central excise duty - Held that:- the Tribunal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, has noted that by an order, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to consider the question of eligibility of the appellant to the benefit of Notification No. 125/84 CE dated 20.5.1984. That before the Tribunal the appellant had submitted that though they had prepared the said two ARE-1s, the same were subsequently cancelled, but there was no corresponding entry in their export register. The Tribunal with reference to the letter dated 28.4.2003 to which reference has been made for the appellant, found that the Superintendent of Customs detained some register for verification and that the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Udhwani, JJ. RC Jani Associate, Advocate for the Appellant ORDER ( Per : Honourable Ms. Justice Harsha Devani ) 1. The appellant, M/s. National Impex, has challenged the order dated 2.11.2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, in Appeal No. E/389/2008 by proposing the following two questions stated to be substantial questions of law: (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in deciding the case of the appellant without production of documents/evidence, which are already seized and in the custody of the respondent authority? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the appellant had produced export register before the Superintendent of Customs pursuant to the summons issued to the appellant to show that the items qua two ARE-1s have not been exported and the appellant has not availed of the benefit thereof. Reference was made to the documents annexed at pages 23 and 25 and pointed out that the Superintendent of Customs had seized certain documents including the export register and that while returning the documents, the export register had not been returned. It was submitted that a specific contention has been taken before the Tribunal that the appellant had requested the adjudicating authority to provide copies of the seized documents to establish the cancellation of ARE-1s from the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid two ARE-1s, the same were subsequently cancelled, but there was no corresponding entry in their export register. The Tribunal with reference to the letter dated 28.4.2003 to which reference has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant, found that the Superintendent of Customs detained some register for verification and that the matter was fixed for personal hearing before the adjudicating authority on four occasions. The Tribunal further found that there was no evidence to the effect that the appellant had approached the Superintendent of Customs for release of the goods which were detained in 2003, nor was the seizure memorandum produced by the appellant. The Tribunal took note of the fact that it had remanded the matter twic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
