9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1st March 2002. 2. Concurring with the original authority who held that serial no. 21 in list 9 of the annexure to the notification is restricted such parts as are used captively in the factory for manufacture of goods preceding in the same list, the appeal of M/s Maharashtra Seamless Ltd was rejected leading to this appeal before us. 3. The dispute relates to clearances of 'seamless steel tubes', 'hot finished seamless pipes' and 'tubes of steel' to M/s Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd which are utilised by the latter for manufacture of 'non-conventional energy devices.' 4. We have heard Learned Counsel for appellant and Learned Authorized Representative. While the latter reiterated the findings of the lower authorities, Learned Counsel argued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the A.R. 3A documents supporting the invoices were received back duly acknowledged and with duly completed re-warehousing certificates countersigned by the Central Excise authorities at the end of M/s. BCML. Such copies of A.R. 3As duly certified after re-warehousing were continuously submitted to their Superintendent of Range-V, Pune. It is to be noted that these facts are not disputed by Revenue. It is also stated by the ld. Consultant that Annexure-I is still "live" and has not been cancelled by the Central Excise authorities. The Commissioner (Appeals) in her order acknowledges that the Annexure has been signed by the AC/DC Central Excise but has not raised the question of cancellation of Annexure 'I'. In fact the Commissioner (Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a bank guarantee. The department has to follow the procedure under Section 35E for setting aside the Annexure-I certificate. Unless, the Annexure-I certificate is cancelled or rejected by the competent authority, by following the procedure under Section 35E, it is not permissible for the respondents to invoke Section 11A of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the issuance of show cause notices are without jurisdiction and liable to be struck down." In the case of the appellants also we find that Annexure-I which clearly granted exemption to the appellants has not been cancelled. Therefore, the demand of duty against the appellants and imposition of penalty is not legal. 6. Contending that failure to demand the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y duty. As per the scheme laid down in Rule 13 and Rule 14A, if the manufacturer has removed the goods for export and he has furnished the bond, he would be liable to pay duty in case the goods are not exported. In this case, goods have been removed by M/s. Indian Molasses Co. P. Ltd. and bond for export has also been executed by them. Hence any demand with regard to any quantity not exported can be raised only against M/s. Indian Molasses Co. P. Ltd. as per Rule 14A of the Central Excise Rules. Hence, the appellants, who are manufacturers and who have not removed the goods for export under bond cannot be fastened with duty liability. I, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the authorities below.' has laid down the ratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
