9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant. None, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : P.K. Das, Member (J)]. - The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture and export of Leather Garments classifiable under sub-heading No. 4201.90 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In terms of Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001, the respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the records in detail. For the purpose of appreciation of the case, we reproduce the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) herein below :- "8. In regard to non-filing of ARE-2, I find that except observing this formality, appellant have adhered to all other requirements prescribed under Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g bills including other related export documents are ample evidences to establish that suede leather garments with acrylic knitted panels were exported. With regard to the other ground that it was not possible to draw a definite inference that same acrylic panels were used in the exported garments, which were procured free of duty, I find that the adjudicating officer in his order under appeal has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g procedure under Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001, is applicable to the present case. In the relied upon case, the demand of duty had been confirmed on the ground that while exporting the goods the party failed to follow the procedure laid down in the Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 as much as they did not furnish the bond, letter of undertaking, etc., b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
