TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification which he has done but it appears that substantial compliance was not made out by the appellant as observed in his order. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal [2005 (10) TMI 89 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that one cannot ignore above said Rules while claiming exemption under such notification. Compliance has not been made out by the appellant - appeal dismissed. - C/221/2009 - A/91474/17 - Dated:- 11-12-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate, for appellant Shri Chatur Singh, Asst. Commr (AR), for respondent ORDER P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efit of the advance licence was denied. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant had approached the Commissioner of Customs (Export) and asked stay on the recovery which was refused. So, the appellant had approached CESTAT in Appeal No.C/128/08 for staying the recovery of duty amount and penalty. The Tribunal vide its order dated 26.03.2008 has remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority with a direction to look into the matter under Notification No.32/1997 is capable of being complied/verified, and if such verifications are found to be complied with, he should pass a reasoned order giving reasons therefor. In pursuance, a fresh order was passed by the adjudicating authority where the demand of excise duty and penalty was levied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the instant case the registration was obtained after the export of the goods. So at the time of export the genuineness was not examined. In the instant case, it is clear that various condition of the Rules for import of goods at concessional rate of duty have not been fulfilled. In the remand order passed by the Tribunal, the Commissioner was directed to verify whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification which he has done but it appears that substantial compliance was not made out by the appellant as observed in his order. 9. We have also gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal - 2005 (188) ELT 353 (SC.) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
