TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1040X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue within a period of 24 hours - Held that: - The condition of filing the proof of export is there in the notification but no time period is laid down. As such, the time limit of six months by the authorities below was not justified - the appellant had not supplied the goods to the SEZ units. In such a scenario, the submission of ARE-1 triplicate copy with the Revenue within 24 hours cannot be a g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al relates to the said clearance as also the benefit to the extent of ₹ 9,08,005/- stands denied to the appellant on the ground that proof of export was not submitted within the period of six months from the date of clearance and the appellant has not filed ARE-1 triplicate copy with the Revenue within a period of 24 hours. 2. The condition of filing the proof of export is there in the no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2012 (282) E.L.T. 473 (Tri.-Ahmd.) has observed that delay in submission of proof of exports cannot be adopted as a ground to deny the substantive benefit, if otherwise available. In the case of K.B. Power Care Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - 2013 (291) E.L.T. 561 (Tri.-Bang.), it was held that the demand of duty raised on the ground that assessee neither executed a bond nor men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001, if the same is otherwise available to the assessee. Learned DR prays that the matter be remanded to the lower authorities for examining as to whether the goods were actually cleared to SEZ units and were received by them. For the said limited purpose, we remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority. Appeal is disposed of in above manner. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
