Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. National Impex Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise And Customs

100% EOU - Whether the CESTAT has committed substantial error of law in deciding the case of appellant without production of documents/evidence, which are already seized and in the custody of the respondent authority. Also whether CESTAT has committed substantial error of law in casting the burden of proof on the appellant where the documents/evidence, which are already seized and in the custody of the respondent authority - appellant exported goods under the cover of six ARE-1s during the perio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gh 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 was fixed for personal hearing before the adjudicating authority on four occasions. The Tribunal further found that there was no evidence to the e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the appellant failed to provide any evidence that the two ARE-1s were cancelled and also found that the plea of seizure of the documents is without any basis. It is in these circumstances that the Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, has not accepted the case of the appellant that there was seizure of documents and that there was any failure on the part of the adjudicating authority to furnish such documents to the appellant. Therefore, it is not possible to state that the con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mpex, 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 t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he period from 13.2.2002 to 17.3.2003. The appellant produced proof of export in respect of four ARE-1s but failed to produce proof in respect of ARE-1s No. 328 and 329, both dated 29.1.2003, involving central excise duty of ₹ 7,96,027/-. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of ₹ 7,96,027/- under the two ARE-1s along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount under rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rule, 2002 and also imposed penalty of ₹ 7,00,000/- on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ort and hence, no tax is required to be levied thereon. It was 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 an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ments which have been seized by the respondents, would amount to breach of the principles of natural justice and hence, the Tribunal ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant after directing the adjudicating authority to furnish the documents to the appellant. It was, accordingly, urged that the appeal deserves to be admitted on the questions as proposed or as may be formulated by this court. 5. This court has considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

noted that by an order dated 20.2.2007 the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to consider the question of eligibility of the appellant to the benefit of the 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 ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Update Alerts     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version