TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d if demanded within a year. It was also found that ARE-2 containing all the details of raw materials used were filed by the appellant within 24 hours of export clearance from the factory - the demand is time-barred. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/51099-51100/2014 - Final Order Nos. A/53852-53853/2016-SM(BR) - Dated:- 7-9-2016 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) Dr. G.K. Sarkar and Shri Prasant Srivastav, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri M.R. Sharma, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER These two appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 161-162/C.E./DLH/2013, dated 17-10-2013. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the main appellant herein had claimed rebate of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s out of the factory, within 24 hrs., the appellant filed ARE-2 containing the details of duty paid on excisable raw materials used in the manufacture of export goods. The ARE-2 contains the description of raw material, quantity, the use, name of supplier, invoice number and date of supply, amount of rebate admissible on the said supply of raw materials. So, it is evident that all the raw material particulars were furnished by the appellant to the department when they filed ARE-2 between 5-12-2005 to 14-5-2006, whereas show cause notice was issued on 5-12-2011. Hence, it is contended that the demand in the instant case, is barred by limitation. Moreover, the Order-in-Appeal is completely silent on the issue of limitation. The contentions ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anged by them only and transportation charges were also paid by them and their authorized representative did not visit the supplier s premises for taking delivery of goods. 5. Placing reliance on Mittal Steel Ltd. reported as 2002 (150) E.L.T. 437 (Tri.-Bang.) affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court reported as 2008 (231) E.L.T. A102 (S.C.) and Veer Enterprises reported as 2015 (319) E.L.T. 305 (Tri.-Del.), the ld. Counsel argued that unless department shows as to how and from where raw materials for manufactured export goods were procured, the allegation against the appellant cannot sustain as export of goods is not in dispute at all. It is also contended that all payments to the suppliers were made by cheques/banking channel under proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ength of invoices/bills without physically receiving the goods. 10. It is evident from the records and submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the appellant that the show cause notice has been issued mainly on the basis of statements of transporter, etc. But cross-examination has not been allowed by the adjudicating authority as well as by the Commissioner (Appeals). Moreover, the case laws referred by the appellant has not been discussed in the orders. In view of judgments relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant as mentioned above, I find that the orders have been passed in violation of Principles of Natural Justice. 11. From the perusal of records and submissions, it is evident that the show cause notice has not spelt out the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
