2017 (2) TMI 140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellant. Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Supdt. (AR.) for the Department ORDER The present appeal is preferred against the Order-in-Original No. 50/COMMISSIONER/NOIDA/2012-13 DATED 24.12.2012. 2.  The brief facts of the case are that, the appellants got themselves registered with the jurisdictional Central Excise officers under Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y, 2010 to October, 2010, the appellant exported 8,254 Nos. of LCD Panels on which the exemption under the said Notification was allowed at the time of importation wherein duty forgone under the claim of said Notification was Rs. 78,53,643/-. It appeared to Revenue that under Rule 8 of said Rule 8,254 Nos. of LCD Panels were not  accounted for by the appellant and therefore Rs. 78,53,643/-&nb .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der Rule 8 was for accounting for the goods and to establish that the goods on which concessional rate duty was paid are used for the purpose which their import was intended. He has further submitted that the goods which were re-exported without any use should be treated as if the same were never imported and should be treated as accounted for and the provisions of Rule 8 for recovery are not invo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X